From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <eliz@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 854993844079
 for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Fri,  3 Jul 2020 15:08:53 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 854993844079
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eliz@gnu.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43176)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1jrNJ6-0001OE-KS; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 11:08:52 -0400
Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3974 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1jrNJ6-0005tT-0S; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 11:08:52 -0400
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 18:08:52 +0300
Message-Id: <83v9j4vdob.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
CC: tom@tromey.com, brobecker@adacore.com
In-Reply-To: <83tuyqvwdf.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Thu, 02
 Jul 2020 17:12:44 +0300)
Subject: Re: Building today's snapshot of GDB with MinGW
References: <83a70l20dn.fsf@gnu.org> <83tuyqvwdf.fsf@gnu.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-patches>,
 <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-patches>,
 <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 15:08:54 -0000

> Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 17:12:44 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
>   (top-gdb) p pieces.m_pieces._M_impl._M_start[1]
>   $5 = {string = 0x178c5ad8 "%d", argclass = int_arg, n_int_args = 0}
>   (top-gdb) p pieces.m_pieces._M_impl._M_start[2]
>   $6 = {string = 0x178c5adc "%I64x", argclass = long_long_arg, n_int_args = 0}
> 
> As you see, we replace "%llx" with "%I64x", and the comparison then
> fails.  Would it be okay to fix this by providing a different
> expected_pieces when USE_PRINTF_I64 is non-zero?

Actually, USE_PRINTF_I64 seems to be zero in my build, so I don't
really see why does format.cc replace "%llx" with "%I64x".  Could
someone please help me see that which I'm missing here?