On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 03:14:06PM +0300, Tomash Brechko wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 12:54:22 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00607.html for a test case > > that shows where it can go horrible wrong (optimized code significantly > > slower than unoptimized code) Admittedly it is a constructed > > one, but I don't think it is that unrealistic. > > Thanks. I had to change %Lu to %lu, and the example shows the point > when run multiple times.
Sorry that was a glibc'ism. The correct C99 specifier would be %llu or %qu for traditional BSD. -Andi
