Hi, On 23 November 2016 at 20:19, Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 14:56:59 +0000 > Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: > >> tiny-printf does not know about the "l" modifier so far, which breaks >> the crash dump on AArch64, because it uses %lx to print the registers. >> Add an easy way of handling longs correctly. > > I can't help but notice that the changes of this kind are in a way > defeating the original purpose of tiny-printf. And it is surely not > the first patch adding features to tiny-printf. I guess, in the end > we may end up with a large and bloated printf implementation again :-) > > A possible solution might be just a strict check when parsing format > modifiers and abort with an error message (yeah, this will introduce > some size increase, but hopefully the last one). This way we > acknowledge the fact that tiny-printf is a reduced incomplete > implementation, and that the callers need to take this into account. > > As for the "l" modifier. How much does it add to the code size? IMHO > this information should be mentioned in the commit message. Can the > AArch64 crash dump code be modified to avoid using it? Or can we have > the "l" modifier supported on 64-bit platforms only? > >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> >> --- >> lib/tiny-printf.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
I think I tested this patch as adding 36 bytes on Thumb2 so not too terrible. But I do agree with the sentiment. Why is aarch64 using tiny-printf? Surely all though chips have heaps of space?! Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
