On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 21:52 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I can't find a log of this anywhere, it's probably the default >> >> compiler warnings for our platform are different? >> > >> > It would be handy to understand them since I dont see gcc differentiating >> > formats between ppc64 and x86_64 which both are 64bit hosts. But obviously >> > there is something missing. >> >> I finally got around to rerunning this without my patch and the errors >> are below. > > I dug into this a bit. To quote asm/types.h: > > /* > * This is here because we used to use l64 for 64bit powerpc > * and we don't want to impact user mode with our change to ll64 > * in the kernel. > */ > #if defined(__powerpc64__) && !defined(__KERNEL__) > # include <asm-generic/int-l64.h> > #else > # include <asm-generic/int-ll64.h> > #endif > > So ppc64 kernel space uses ll64 and userspace uses l64. >
thanks this is what I was interested in. > This means __u64 is a long for ppc64 but a long long for x86_64. The > format errors occurs rightly because a ull is being printed from a ul > variable. This will happen to work but its messy. havent seen the code but if its printf like then PRIu64 macro could help. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
