On 12 January 2016 at 00:24, Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> There are a couple of problems you're running into: >> >> (1) machine->ram_size is a ram_addr_t so might be 32 bit; you >> can do what virt.c does to avoid the warning and use a local >> uin64_t variable for the comparison > > Ok, I now create a uint64_t variable to store the value. > >> >> (2) complaint about reassigning back to ram_size. this is spurious >> but you can avoid it by making this board behave the same way as >> virt.c, vexpress.c etc do if presented with an unsupported >> ram_size -- you should fail, rather than truncating and continuing. > > If I'm using a 64-bit variable to store the value won't this no longer > be a problem?
I think you should do the same thing the other boards do anyway. >> (3) %llx is not the correct format string for a ram_addr_t: >> use RAM_ADDR_FMT. (This isn't making the compiler complain, >> but I noticed it looking at the code.) > > Again, isn't this fixed by changing to a variable? %llx isn't right for uint64_t either :-) thanks -- PMM
