Re: [Cake] [PATCH 1/2] cake: print_uint format fixes

[Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1580 bytes --]



> On 12 Mar 2018, at 15:38, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
> 
> Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> writes:
> 
>>>> Using the ‘PRId64’ macro won’t work because print_int is using ‘int’
>>>> type internally whereas print_uint uses ‘uint64_t’ internally. So the
>>>> format string has to have knowledge of the internal format, *but*
>>>> there’s no clue of the difference in internal format offered by the
>>>> function name i.e. print_int vs print_uint.
>>>> 
>>>> I’d argue it makes more sense to have: print_int/print_uint as the
>>>> native int length, that hopefully match up with %u & %d and then have
>>>> print_int64/print_uint64 where use of formats PRId64 & PRIu64 is
>>>> advised.
>>> 
>>> Yes, this was basically what I meant by "grating"; I really do agree
>>> that this API is confusing.
>>> 
>>> Stephen, would you accept patches to fix the API (to add
>>> print_{u,}int64() variants and turn print_uint() into native-int size)?
>>> Or should we stick with the API currently there and live with the
>>> inconsistency? :)
>>> 
>>> -Toke
>> 
>> I agree print_int should take int, print_uint should take unsigned
>> int, and there should be print_u64 (and print_u32, print_u8)
> 
> Cool. Kevin, do you feel like submitting a patch? :)
> 
> -Toke

I’m in full on $paidwork broadcast sound supervisor mode for the next 4 days, so it won’t be done in a screaming rush.

Talk about patch feature creep ;-)

Cheers,

Kevin D-B

012C ACB2 28C6 C53E 9775  9123 B3A2 389B 9DE2 334A


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]