On 03/30/2012 11:54 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> time_t appears to be an unsigned long so use %ld.
Not portable. POSIX does not guarantee the size of time_t; there are
32-bit platforms where time_t is 64-bit.
The only way to print a time_t value is to cast it through a known-width
type, and seei
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 19:13, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 30/03/2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>> On 03/30/2012 01:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
> a 32 bit long).
On 03/30/2012 02:23 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 30.03.2012 21:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/30/2012 02:13 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
On 03/30/2012 01:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Now it will fai
Am 30.03.2012 21:16, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 03/30/2012 02:13 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
On 03/30/2012 01:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
a 3
On 03/30/2012 02:13 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
On 03/30/2012 01:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
a 32 bit long).
That's a bug in w64 (it has a br
Il 30/03/2012 21:06, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
> On 03/30/2012 01:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
a 32 bit long).
>>>
>>> That's a bug in w64 (it has a broken ABI).
>>>
>>> Do we actu
On 03/30/2012 01:55 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
a 32 bit long).
That's a bug in w64 (it has a broken ABI).
Do we actually build and run on w64??
It's actually sensible and x32 does the same
Il 30/03/2012 20:29, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>> Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
>> a 32 bit long).
>
> That's a bug in w64 (it has a broken ABI).
>
> Do we actually build and run on w64??
It's actually sensible and x32 does the same. Not too urgent though.
Paolo
On 03/30/2012 01:03 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
Am 30.03.2012 19:59, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
Applied. Sorry for the breakage.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
There is a new breakage:
Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
a 32 bit long).
That's a bug in w64 (it has a broken ABI).
D
Am 30.03.2012 19:59, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
Applied. Sorry for the breakage.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
There is a new breakage:
Now it will fail with w64 (which uses 64 bit time_t and
a 32 bit long).
Regards,
Stefan W.
Applied. Sorry for the breakage.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
On 03/30/2012 12:54 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
time_t appears to be an unsigned long so use %ld.
Reported-by: Stefan Weil
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
---
qtest.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff
time_t appears to be an unsigned long so use %ld.
Reported-by: Stefan Weil
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
---
qtest.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/qtest.c b/qtest.c
index 53e2b79..cd7186c 100644
--- a/qtest.c
+++ b/qtest.c
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static in
12 matches
Mail list logo