[Warning fixes 5/6] Fix warning: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90 [enabled by default] by explicitely declaring the value as UL
3:21 a.m.
Signed-off-by: Joerg Mayer <jmpt(a)loplof.de>
diff --git a/src/cpu/cpu.cpp b/src/cpu/cpu.cpp
index 368d3dd..c3f0c79 100644
--- a/src/cpu/cpu.cpp
+++ b/src/cpu/cpu.cpp
@@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ void perf_power_bundle::handle_trace_point(void *trace, int cpunr,
uint64_t time
exit(-1);
}
- if (val == 4294967295)
+ if (val == 4294967295UL)
cpu->go_unidle(time);
else
cpu->go_idle(time);
--
1.7.7
6:18 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [Warning fixes 5/6] Fix warning: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90 [enabled by default] by explicitely declaring the value as UL
A change was suggested in .../cpu.cpp at or near line 975, explicitly adding the
"UL" suffix to the decimal integer literal:
4294967295 --> 4294967295UL
Is that the right thing to do? This is "ULONG_MAX" (for machines with 32-bit
"word" size). Would it be more correct to use the identifier ULONG_MAX? In
modern #include files, <limits.h> (for example) correctly provides the
"UL" suffix.
--
james.d.howard(a)intel.com Principal Engineer
//Intel/SSG/DRD/PAE/FACE/DCE
+1-503-712-8608
________________________________________
From: powertop-bounces(a)lists.01.org [powertop-bounces(a)lists.01.org] on behalf of Joerg
Mayer [jmpt(a)loplof.de]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 10:21
To: powertop(a)lists.01.org
Subject: [Powertop] [Warning fixes 5/6] Fix warning: warning: this decimal constant is
unsigned only in ISO C90 [enabled by default] by explicitely declaring the value as UL
Signed-off-by: Joerg Mayer <jmpt(a)loplof.de>
diff --git a/src/cpu/cpu.cpp b/src/cpu/cpu.cpp
index 368d3dd..c3f0c79 100644
--- a/src/cpu/cpu.cpp
+++ b/src/cpu/cpu.cpp
@@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ void perf_power_bundle::handle_trace_point(void *trace, int cpunr,
uint64_t time
exit(-1);
}
- if (val == 4294967295)
+ if (val == 4294967295UL)
cpu->go_unidle(time);
else
cpu->go_idle(time);
--
1.7.7
_______________________________________________
PowerTop mailing list
PowerTop(a)lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/powertop
7:54 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [Warning fixes 5/6] Fix warning: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90 [enabled by default] by explicitely declaring the value as UL
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 08:18:58PM +0000, Howard, James D wrote:
A change was suggested in .../cpu.cpp at or near line 975, explicitly
adding the "UL" suffix to the decimal integer literal:
4294967295 --> 4294967295UL
Is that the right thing to do? This is "ULONG_MAX" (for machines with 32-bit
"word" size). Would it be more correct to use the identifier ULONG_MAX? In
modern #include files, <limits.h> (for example) correctly provides the
"UL" suffix.
If __WORDSIZE is 32 on all architectures that powertop will run on,
then yes, we should use ULONG_MAX instead. I will have to find out about
WORDSIZE on 64 bit architectures, as I'm still on a 32 bit system.
On sytems with __WORDSIZE of 64 bits ULONG_MAX is 18446744073709551615UL.
But that's something I will look at after a night's sleep.
Ciao
Jörg
8:01 a.m.
New subject: [Powertop] [Warning fixes 5/6] Fix warning: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90 [enabled by default] by explicitely declaring the value as UL
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:54:33PM +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 08:18:58PM +0000, Howard, James D wrote:
> A change was suggested in .../cpu.cpp at or near line 975, explicitly adding the
"UL" suffix to the decimal integer literal:
> 4294967295 --> 4294967295UL
> Is that the right thing to do? This is "ULONG_MAX" (for machines with
32-bit "word" size). Would it be more correct to use the identifier ULONG_MAX?
In modern #include files, <limits.h> (for example) correctly provides the
"UL" suffix.
If __WORDSIZE is 32 on all architectures that powertop will run on,
then yes, we should use ULONG_MAX instead. I will have to find out about
WORDSIZE on 64 bit architectures, as I'm still on a 32 bit system.
On sytems with __WORDSIZE of 64 bits ULONG_MAX is 18446744073709551615UL.
But that's something I will look at after a night's sleep.
OK, this was much less work than I thought:
On a 64 bit system that I have access to, /usr/include/bits/wordsize.h:
#if defined __x86_64__
# define __WORDSIZE 64
# define __WORDSIZE_COMPAT32 1
#else
# define __WORDSIZE 32
#endif
So I think the answer to your question should be "no", we should not use
ULONG_MAX.
Ciao
Jaörg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
3677
days inactive
3677
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Howard, James D -
Joerg Mayer