This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Aug 27 10:57, Andre Vieira wrote: > On 24/07/15 11:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jul 24 11:21, Andre Vieira wrote: > >>On 23/07/15 20:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>>Hi Andre, > >>> > >>>On Jul 23 11:28, Andre Vieira wrote: > >>>>The PRI and SCN macro's were producing formats that did not match their > >>>>target types set by GCC. This patch uses the types defined for > >>>>__INTxx_TYPE__, __INT_FASTxx_TYPE__ and __INT_LEASTxx_TYPE__ to define their > >>>>corresponding macros. > >>>> > >>>>newlib/ChangeLog: > >>>>2015-07-23 Andre Vieira <...> > >>>> > >>>> * libc/include/sys/_intsup.h: Defined new __INTxx, __FASTxx and > >>>> _LEASTxx macro's to hold information regarding the respective types > >>>> print and scan formats. > >>>> * libc/include/inttypes.h: Defined LEAST and FAST specific PRI and SCN > >>>> macro's as these are not always the same as the INT variants. Used > >>>> the new > >>>> __INTxx, __FASTxx and __LEASTxx macro's in their corresponding PRI > >>>> and SCN macros. > >>> > >>>I gave your patch a quick glance and it looks basically ok to me. > >>>I'll review it more thorougly tomorrow (I hope), but I have a question: > >>> > >>>How did you test your patch? > >>> > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Corinna > >>> > >>Hi Corinna, > >> > >>That is a very good question. To be honest with you I ran gcc and newlib > >>regression tests and did a manual test on one machine. As I was about to > >>send you the manual patch I noticed I forgot to change the SCN16(x) define. > >>So I'll respin this patch for you and I'll also give testing a bit more > >>thinking. > >> > >>There is no straightforward way of testing this I think. Though I will try > >>to create a sensible sscanf/sprintf test and get back to you. Suggestions > >>are welcome. > > > >Some simple testcase which allows easy manual inspection of the results > >would do, I guess. You know, output in rows, kind of like > > > > typename basetype printf macro scanf macro > > int32_t int "d" "d" > > int16fast_t long "ld" "ld" > > > >If you have a chance to test on, say, 2 platforms, I'd add inspection on > >32 and 64 bit Cygwin. That should allow to be reasonable sure that the > >patch doesn't break any platform. > > > > > >Thanks, > >Corinna > > > > Sorry for the delay. > > As Kevin reported on Launchpad > (https://answers.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+question/269083), the PRI > and SCN macro's were producing formats that did not match their target types > set by GCC. This patch uses the types defined for __INTxx_TYPE__, > __INT_FASTxx_TYPE__ and __INT_LEASTxx_TYPE__ to define their corresponding > macros. Attached you can find the file used for manual testing and the > results of running this test for compiled versions for arm-none-eabi(32 bit) > and aarch64-none-elf(64 bit), named arm.run and aarch64.run respectively. Thanks a lot! I tested the patch successfully on both supported Cygwin platforms, i686 and x86_64. Patch applied. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
pgpFJsQDv1Ro6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |