On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Kai Tietz <ktiet...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2011/12/9 Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Kai Tietz <ktiet...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> 2011/12/9 Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com>: >>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Kai Tietz <ktiet...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> this patch fixes for windows native target print-formatter used about >>>>> long-long type. >>>>> >>>>> ChangeLog >>>>> >>>>> 2011-12-09 Kai Tietz <kti...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> * ira-color.c (print_hard_regs_subforest): Use >>>>> HOST_WIDEST_INT_PRINT_DEC instead of %lld. >>>>> >>>>> Tested for i686-w64-mingw32, x86_64-w64-mingw32, and >>>>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for apply? >>>> >>>> Hm? struct allocno_hard_regs uses a long long int cost member, >>>> so why is %lld wrong? If it doesn't work then you should change >>>> the cost member to use HOST_WIDEST_INT as well I guess >>>> (and verify all (indirect) uses). >>>> >>>> Richard. >>> >>> Issue is that the printf-formatter %ll doesn't necessarily is present >>> for windows native targets. For these targets the formatter is %I64 >>> here instead. >> >> We seem to have HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT, why not use that? > > Well, HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT just specifies here the "ll"/"I64". Sure, > we can use it here, too. But as HOST_WIDEST_INT_PRINT_DEC is defined > as '"%" HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT "d", and other places are using it for > this purpose, too, it looks to me more sane to use here the > HOST_WIDEST_INT_PRINT_DEC directly.
Not on a 'long long int' type though (the use of 'long long' is questionable anyway, given it's not in C89 nor C++98). Richard. > Kai
