Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hw/timer/hpet: Fix DPRINTF format string

[Dov Murik]

On 13/09/2020 14:40, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 9/12/20 7:40 PM, Dov Murik wrote:
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > On 10/09/2020 16:58, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > Fix building with HPET_DEBUG enabled:
> > >
> > >     hw/timer/hpet.c:512:73: error: format specifies type 'unsigned int'
> > > but the argument has type 'uint64_t' (aka 'unsigned long')
> > > [-Werror,-Wformat]
> > >         DPRINTF("qemu: Enter hpet_ram_writel at %" PRIx64 " = %#x\n",
> > > addr, value);
> > >                                                              
> > > ~~~           ^~~~~
> > >                                                               %#lx
> > >     hw/timer/hpet.c:655:21: error: format specifies type 'unsigned int'
> > > but the argument has type 'uint64_t' (aka 'unsigned long')
> > > [-Werror,-Wformat]
> > >                         value, s->hpet_counter);
> > >                         ^~~~~
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Dov Murik <dovmurik@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >    hw/timer/hpet.c | 9 ++++++---
> > >    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/timer/hpet.c b/hw/timer/hpet.c
> > > index b683f64f1d3..20bd0388740 100644
> > > --- a/hw/timer/hpet.c
> > > +++ b/hw/timer/hpet.c
> > > @@ -495,7 +495,8 @@ static void hpet_ram_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
> > >        HPETState *s = opaque;
> > >        uint64_t old_val, new_val, val, index;
> > >
> > > -    DPRINTF("qemu: Enter hpet_ram_writel at %" PRIx64 " = %#x\n",
> > > addr, value);
> > > +    DPRINTF("qemu: Enter hpet_ram_writel at %#" HWADDR_PRIx " =
> > > %#"PRIx64"\n",
> > > +            addr, value);
> >
> > You still use "#" in the format string; but qemu's CODING_STYLE.rst says:
> >
> > //////////////
> >
> > '#' printf flag
> > ---------------
> >
> > Do not use printf flag '#', like '%#x'.
> >
> > Rationale: there are two ways to add a '0x' prefix to printed number:
> > '0x%...'
> > and '%#...'. For consistency the only one way should be used. Arguments for
> > '0x%' are:
> >
> > * it is more popular
> > * '%#' omits the 0x for the value 0 which makes output inconsistent
>
> Yes you are right, I missed that.
>
> Do you mind adding that check to ./checkpatch?

Fix to checkpatch sent in another patch:

https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg740065.html

-Dov