From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <systemtap-return-3020-listarch-systemtap=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31710 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2006 21:05:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 31700 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2006 21:05:50 -0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:05:46 +0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) 	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3AL5ijD009400 	for <systemtap@sources.redhat.com>; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:05:44 -0400
Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) 	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3AL5i2R019960; 	Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:05:44 -0400
Received: from vpn83-199.boston.redhat.com (vpn83-199.boston.redhat.com [172.16.83.199]) 	by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3AL5g0P012792; 	Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:05:43 -0400
Subject: Re: nightly test result of systemtap in ppc64
From: Martin Hunt <hunt@redhat.com>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
Cc: Hien Nguyen <hien@us.ibm.com>, SystemTAP <systemtap@sources.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <y0mk69xkvs5.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com>
References: <443AA436.9040802@us.ibm.com> <443ABDD2.6070403@us.ibm.com> 	 <y0mk69xkvs5.fsf@ton.toronto.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Red Hat Inc.
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:05:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1144703141.2527.4.camel@dragon>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:systemtap-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:systemtap@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:systemtap-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2

On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 16:42 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hien Nguyen <hien@us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > powerpc does not like [%lld vs int64_t]
> > but likes this [%lld vs (long long)]
> > or this [%ld vs int64_t]
> > could it be a compiler bug?
> 
> More likely a "pilot error" in the new code.  

If you mean I checked in a new vsnprintf() but not a new snprintf(), you
are right. I'll get that checked in.

When writing vsnprintf(), I changed %lld to expect int64_t instead of
"long long". And then I forgot to also check in a new snprintf(). That's
the reason for the errors.

Martin