On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 07:25:14PM +0000, Alin Serdean wrote: > > > PRI_ZU is a bad name because it doesn't follow the existing pattern. > > The name PRIuSIZE fits the pattern, so that is what I would suggest. > > > The existing PRI* macros only include a type modifier, not the format > > specifier, so PRIuSIZE should not include the format specifier either. > > Is this what you mean? > > #ifdef _WIN32 > #define _PFX_SIZE "I" > #else > #define _PFX_SIZE "z" > #endif > > #ifdef _WIN32 > #define PRIuSIZE _PFX_SIZE "u" > #else > #define PRIuSIZE _PFX_SIZE "u" > #endif
PRIu64 expands to something like "ll" or "I64". PRIuSIZE should only expand to "z" or "I" or whatever. (It's bizarre, by the way, that Microsoft went out of its way to define what must be an intentionally incompatible format specifier for size_t.) > > The Autoconf philosophy is to test for features, not for system type. > > > This does not appear to include anything to enforce use of the macro. I > > will not apply a change that lacks such enforcement. > > I do not want to step on any toes with this, but the way I see it is: > 1. Use autoconf to generate the macro(and use the fact <config.h> is included > in every file) > 2. We define a header that is included in every source file That reads like a non sequitur, I don't see how it responds to my comments. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
