[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] mingw32: Fix definitions for PRId64, PRIx64, PRIu64, PRIo64

[Stefan Weil]

Am 30.01.2011 22:39, schrieb Blue Swirl:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Stefan Weil <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Am 04.12.2010 20:41, schrieb Stefan Weil:
> > > QEMU always uses POSIX format specifiers, even with mingw32.
> > >
> > > Therefore the old definitions of the PRI*64 macros were wrong.
> > > They should be removed, but as long as the mingw32 system
> > > include inttypes.h provides wrong definitions, too,
> > > we correct them here.
> > >
> > > Cc: Blue Swirl <address@hidden>
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > > qemu-common.h | 16 ++++++++++++----
> > > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/qemu-common.h b/qemu-common.h
> > > index de82c2e..c739f45 100644
> > > --- a/qemu-common.h
> > > +++ b/qemu-common.h
> > > @@ -96,10 +96,18 @@ static inline char *realpath(const char *path, char
> > > *resolved_path)
> > > return resolved_path;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -#define PRId64 "I64d"
> > > -#define PRIx64 "I64x"
> > > -#define PRIu64 "I64u"
> > > -#define PRIo64 "I64o"
> > > +/* inttypes.h (mingw32) provides wrong definitions, so fix them 
> > > here. */
> > > +/* TODO: remove this workaround as soon as mingw32 is fixed. */
> > > +
> > > +#undef PRId64
> > > +#undef PRIx64
> > > +#undef PRIu64
> > > +#undef PRIo64
> > > +
> > > +#define PRId64 "lld"
> > > +#define PRIx64 "llx"
> > > +#define PRIu64 "llu"
> > > +#define PRIo64 "llo"
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > /* FIXME: Remove NEED_CPU_H. */
> >
> > What about this patch? It is still missing in QEMU git master.
>
> It would appear to suppress quite a few warnings about formats. But on
> my version of inttypes.h there is the following comment:
> /* 7.8.1 Macros for format specifiers
> *
> * MS runtime does not yet understand C9x standard "ll"
> * length specifier. It appears to treat "ll" as "l".
> * The non-standard I64 length specifier causes warning in GCC,
> * but understood by MS runtime functions.
> */
> So is this change OK after all?

Yes, it is. MS runtime indeed does not understand "%lld"
and similar format specifiers.

Mingw does, because it replaces the printf family functions
by inline functions which call __mingw_vfprintf as soon
as __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO is defined. If your MinGW stdio.h
does not use __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO, it is too old.

QEMU defines __USE_MINGW_ANSI_STDIO, and __mingw_vfprintf
understands C9x standard length specifiers.

Stefan