On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 08:37:42AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 08:10:45AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > The printf format checking in the compiler uses the intmax types from > > the compiler, not libc. This can lead to compiler errors. > > > > Instead use the types already provided by the compiler. > > > > Example issue with clang 19 for arm64: > > > > nolibc-test.c:30:2: error: format specifies type 'uintmax_t' (aka 'unsigned > > long') but the argument has type 'uintmax_t' (aka 'unsigned long long') > > [-Werror,-Wformat] > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weisssc...@linutronix.de> > > --- > > tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h > > index > > cd79ddd6170e05b19945e66151bcbcf840028d32..b052ad6303c38f09685b645268dad1fa8848370d > > 100644 > > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h > > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdint.h > > @@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ typedef size_t uint_fast32_t; > > typedef int64_t int_fast64_t; > > typedef uint64_t uint_fast64_t; > > > > -typedef int64_t intmax_t; > > -typedef uint64_t uintmax_t; > > +typedef __INTMAX_TYPE__ intmax_t; > > +typedef __UINTMAX_TYPE__ uintmax_t; > > Just thinking loud. While I understand the rationale behind this > change, it somewhat contradicts the one on printf where we explicitly > use it as an "unsigned long long" that's expected to be 64 bits: > > CASE_TEST(uintmax_t); EXPECT_VFPRINTF(20, "18446744073709551615", > "%ju", 0xffffffffffffffffULL); break; > > Do we really have guarantees that a compiler will always declare > it as a 64-bit or unsigned long long ?
It should always be 64bit. But not necessarily unsigned long long. In the case from the commit message it is unsigned long. > E.g. we could see new > compilers decide that uintmax_t becomes 128-bit. Well, maybe in > that case it will simply be a matter of updating the test case > after all... uintmax_t is only guaranteed to hold "any basic unsigned integer type supported by the implementation", while 128bit integers are not "basic" but "extended" and nolibc as implementation does not support them in the first place. Also uintmax_t is used in various ABIs which would get broken if its definition would change, one such example would be printf() itself. The "correct" definition of uintmax_t constants would use UINTMAX_C(). I'm not sure if it's worth adding these macros.
