From: Michael Sevakis <jethead71_at_sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:09:26 -0400

Well, does everyone build 64-bit only as 64-bit longs? Remember intptr_t is
not always the same as long.

I suppose it should wait till there's am immediate need for it but signed
and unsigned can be formatted by the same code and the temps can just be
unsigned so that's an immediate squeeze down there. Long and int can likely
be combined too even for 64-bit longs and 32-bit ints. There should be
64-bit formatting available in general imho.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter D'Hoye" <peter.dhoye_at_telenet.be>
To: "'Michael Sevakis'" <jethead71_at_sbcglobal.net>; "'Rockbox development'"
<rockbox-dev_at_cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: P#7030 closed by petur: Adds the printf format for pointers (%p
or %P)


> > Hey, I really thought about adding something to this effect
> > myself since pointers vary depending upon 32/64 bit target.
> > Perhaps a cleanup of the formatter could actually result in a
> > size reduction and more features at the same time.
>
> Well I tried and while the addition wasn't very big, I figured it wasn't
> worth it, as you can pass a pointer along as %lx, which should always be
> correct for 32/64 bit.
>
> If you manage to reduce codesize, go ahead, but the gain will be
minimal...
>
> Peter
>
Received on 2007-04-17