[flashrom] [PATCH 06/10] uintptr_t-ify physmap functions.

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

Am 17.07.2013 00:04 schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:
> Am 15.07.2013 22:49 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:20:29 +0200
>> Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 10.07.2013 21:17 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
>>>> unsigned long is not the right type for manipulating pointer values.
>>>> Since C99 there are suitable unsigned and signed types available, namely
>>>> uintptr_t and intptr_t respectively.
>>>>
>>>> Use them in physmap.c and its callers where applicable.
>>>>
>>>> This patch also changes the display width of all address values in
>>>> physmap.c to 16/8 hex characters depending on the actual size.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at>
>>> Why don't you use PRIxPTR_WIDTH everywhere including dummyflasher.c?
>> That's a bug AFAICS, thanks.
>>
>>> Put
>>> another way, is there a reason to use PRIxPTR_WIDTH at all?
> IIRC the C99 standard says that PRIxPTR guarantees a canonical
> formatting. I'm guessing the canonical formatting means (for most
> platforms) that the printed pointers have constant width, i.e. the
> PRIxPTR_WIDTH specifier is superfluous. I would avoid that specifier
> unless shown a real-world case where PRIxPTR formatted pointers have
> variable length inside the same flashrom executable.

You have shown a real-world case: Linux. Thanks for checking this. In
that light, PRIxPTR_WIDTH is essential.

 
>>> Do we care that C99 doesn't guarantee a 0x prefix for printed addresses
>>> with PRIxPTR? Will that cause confusion?
>> The main point of it is to get nicely aligned/readable addresses that
>> are padded to the right(tm) size, and yes I guess the guaranteed 0x
>> prefix too (I can't remember TBH :).
> AFAIK the 0x prefix is not guaranteed, and it may even be missing on
> Windows. Someone would have to test (preferably not in Wine).

In your test case, 0x was missing. Do we want to manually add a "0x"
prefix or do we want to use the "#" modifier? If PRIxPTR is "p" or some
variant of it, this might cause a problem because the "#" modifier is
not listed as valid modifier for "p" in C99.

 
> Once the PRIxPTR_WIDTH stuff is consistent
> (preferably removed everywhere), this is:

s/removed/included/


> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/