From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7009 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2013 21:05:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 6969 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2013 21:05:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:05:04 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MIW00100D015P00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:05:02 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MIW000PFD8EYT40@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:05:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:30:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch] gdbserver/win32-low.c: Fix printf-like formatting (was Re: [patch]: Replace stryoul call to fetch address) In-reply-to: <20130227202902.GB14591@calimero.vinschen.de> To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83mwupwjr6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20130227164419.GA16975@calimero.vinschen.de> <512E404E.6070504@redhat.com> <20130227183805.GA30418@calimero.vinschen.de> <512E5B26.7050104@redhat.com> <20130227194235.GB30418@calimero.vinschen.de> <20130227195013.GC30418@calimero.vinschen.de> <83obf5wlon.fsf@gnu.org> <20130227202902.GB14591@calimero.vinschen.de> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00714.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:29:02 +0100 > From: Corinna Vinschen > > If you look closely, I didn't add the unsigned casts. Not in the part I cited (sorry), but elsewhere you did: > @@ -1317,10 +1317,10 @@ handle_exception (struct target_waitstat > ourstatus->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_SPURIOUS; > return; > } > - OUTMSG2 (("gdbserver: unknown target exception 0x%08lx at 0x%s", > - current_event.u.Exception.ExceptionRecord.ExceptionCode, > - phex_nz ((uintptr_t) current_event.u.Exception.ExceptionRecord. > - ExceptionAddress, sizeof (uintptr_t)))); > + OUTMSG2 (("gdbserver: unknown target exception 0x%08x at 0x%s", > + (unsigned) current_event.u.Exception.ExceptionRecord.ExceptionCode, > + phex_nz ((uintptr_t) current_event.u.Exception.ExceptionRecord. > + ExceptionAddress, sizeof (uintptr_t)))); [...] > @@ -1561,10 +1561,10 @@ get_child_debug_event (struct target_wai > > default: > OUTMSG2 (("gdbserver: kernel event unknown " > - "for pid=%d tid=%x code=%ld\n", > + "for pid=%u tid=%x code=%x\n", > (unsigned) current_event.dwProcessId, > (unsigned) current_event.dwThreadId, > - current_event.dwDebugEventCode)); > + (unsigned) current_event.dwDebugEventCode)); > break; > } Are those mistakes? > The unsigned casts are already widely used throughout the file. So why are they there?