On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 25.11.13 15:20, Dave Reisner (dreis...@kemper.freedesktop.org) wrote: >> >>> uint64_t can be formatted correctly with %ju, rather than casting to >>> unsigned and potentially losing accuracy. >> >> Oh, shouldn't we be careful with that? %j is for intmax_t. Which might >> or might not be int64_t. Given that int128_t is already on the horizon >> (newer gcc already support __int128 on 64bit machines...), I wouldn't be >> surprised if intmax_t is growing to 128bit eventually. >> >> Format strings don't really have a nice way to print fixed-size >> integers I fear... the only stuff that is correct is the "PRIu64" macro, >> but that's fricking ugly... >> >> I think PRIu64 is still a better, more future-proof option than %j though... > > I'm about to change all this stuff to print the ifname rather than the > index, so please leave it as is for now.
Done. -t _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
