[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Subtle error defining VALMASK?
|
From: |
Dmitry Antipov |
|
Subject: |
Re: Subtle error defining VALMASK? |
|
Date: |
Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:30:44 +0400 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 |
On 09/10/2014 06:58 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
There's no error here. All three definitions are equivalent because - (1 <<
GCTYPEBITS) equals -8,
which sign-extends to the width of VAL_MAX.
fprintf (stderr, "0x%lx 0x%lx\n", VALMASK, VAL_MAX);
==>
../../trunk/src/alloc.c: In function ‘init_alloc’:
../../trunk/src/alloc.c:7240:3: error: format ‘%lx’ expects argument of type
‘long unsigned int’, but argument 3 has type ‘int’ [-Werror=format=]
fprintf (stderr, "0x%lx 0x%lx\n", VALMASK, VAL_MAX);
^
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
???
Dmitry