This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: printf/inttypes.h warning

Hi Joel,

On Dec 14 23:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi
> I haven't investigated which other targets have this inconsistency yet.
> But the following code gives a printf format warning on i386-rtems but not
> on sparc-rtems.
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <inttypes.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> void f(uintptr_t me)
> {
>   printf( "A: %" PRIdPTR " B: %" PRIdPTR "\n", me, 1 - me );
> }
> This is because intptr_t and uintptr_t are defined as just unsigned int
> on sparc but long unsigned int on i386. 
> $ sparc-rtems4.11-gcc -dM -E - </dev/null | grep INTPTR
> #define __INTPTR_MAX__ 2147483647
> #define __INTPTR_TYPE__ int
> #define __UINTPTR_MAX__ 4294967295U
> #define __UINTPTR_TYPE__ unsigned int
> $ i386-rtems4.11-gcc -dM -E - </dev/null | grep INTPTR
> #define __INTPTR_MAX__ 2147483647L
> #define __INTPTR_TYPE__ long int
> #define __UINTPTR_MAX__ 4294967295UL
> #define __UINTPTR_TYPE__ long unsigned int
> I don't know whether to start sweeping through gcc and try to get
> these all to just unsigned int or add target architecture specific logic
> to fine tune the inttypes.h that newlib has. It looks like the
> logic I added a few months cleared up a lot of these but not all.

It's arguably a bug in gcc if the definitions don't match the base type.
I think a patch to gcc would be preferable, but an additional workaround
in newlib, if it's not too convoluted, wouldn't hurt, I guess.


Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat

Attachment: pgpENTgk5xpRh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]