On 27/08/16 06:05, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> %ul was probably meant as %lu since the former would print
> an unsigned value and a letter l.
>
> But in fact the whole value we are printing in u32 anyway, so
> we don't need the format to be long. Therefore just drop the l
> altogether.
>
> Signed-off-by
On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:18 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 23:05 -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>> %ul was probably meant as %lu since the former would print
>> an unsigned value and a letter l.
>>
>> But in fact the whole value we are printing in u32 anyway, so
>> we don't need the for
On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 23:05 -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> %ul was probably meant as %lu since the former would print
> an unsigned value and a letter l.
>
> But in fact the whole value we are printing in u32 anyway, so
> we don't need the format to be long. Therefore just drop the l
> altogether.
[]
%ul was probably meant as %lu since the former would print
an unsigned value and a letter l.
But in fact the whole value we are printing in u32 anyway, so
we don't need the format to be long. Therefore just drop the l
altogether.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin
---
Also do we really need 1000UL speci
4 matches
Mail list logo
