Re: Large block device patch, part 1 of 9

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
2 Dec 2002 16:05:17 -0800

Followup to: <E17mJZh-0005jw-00@starship>
By author: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> We've been through this before. Last time, the winning solution was:
>
> printk("at least %lli of your u64s are belong to us\n", (long long) sect_num);
>
> and I expect it will be this time too. It's just a printk! Who cares if it
> wastes a few bytes. It's even conceivable that if we use this idiom heavily
> enough, some gcc boffin will take the time to optimize away the useless
> conversions.
>

Why can't we use the C99 standard:

printk("at least %ji of your u64s are belong to us\n", (uintmax_t) sect_num);

I, for one, would be rather happy at having <inttypes.h> available in
the kernel, as either an alternative or instead of the [su]XX/__[su]XX types.

-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/