Stefan Roese wrote: > On Thursday 09 July 2009 14:24:49 Jerry Van Baren wrote: >>> All this would increase the code size for those boards not supporting the >>> 64bit printf format. Not sure by how much, but I suggest to just fix the >>> problem by supporting this format correctly instead of adding new code to >>> print some warnings here. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Stefan >> That is what Scott is trying to do, but fixing 64bit printf causes a >> 2K++ increase in size to the boards that don't currently support 64bit >> printf (some of which are broken due to the error). Wolfgang is >> resisting that. >> >> Adding code to print a warning and handle the varargs properly will >> probably be less than 100 bytes. It looks like this is the compromise >> Wolfgang favors. > > I doubt that this could be done in less than 100 bytes. A descriptive error > message string alone will probably be around >= 60 chars. But I know this is > nitpicking.
Agreed. FWIIW, I wasn't assuming a /descriptive/ error message. I was assuming printf would simply print the format string, e.g. "%lld", rather than a possibly erroneous value. Another alternative would be to do the spreadsheet idiom and print hashes "########". > I'm still voting for adding this 2k and doing it correctly on all boards. > With > the option to disable this 64bit support (as Scott suggested) on boards with > very tight resources. Me too. <shrug> > Best regards, > Stefan Thanks, gvb _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
