Re: PATCH libffi win64 support

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Timothy Wall wrote:
> 
> On Jun 12, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>>
>>>>> I see that on 64-bit linux, PRId64 evaluates to "ld".   "long int" is
>>>>> the same size as "long long int", but gcc is still complaining. 
>>>>> Can you
>>>>> instead cast the "long long int" argument to int64_t or something to
>>>>> remove the warning?
>>
>>>> Hmm.  I guess under the circumstances that's the right thing to do,
>>>> but it's pretty evil in a test case that's suppose to test long long.
>>>> Is the Windows library going to get fixed to accept %lld in the
>>>> forseeable future?  If so, we could just xfail it until then.
>>>
>>> It's not really a bug per se.  It's a feature of the platform.
>>
>> I suppose you could argue that a part of Standard C that is missing is
>> just a feature of a platform rather than a bug, but I find that pretty
>> hard to believe.
>>
>>> If the test case is testing a type that doesn't exist on a given
>>> platform, maybe the proper thing to do is mark it UNSUPPORTED, as
>>> opposed to XFAIL.
>>
>> That's not the problem: it has the type but not the printf format
>> specifier, or so it seems.
> 
> I don't think PRIdMAX would work either; on my linux it's mapped to the
> "ld" as well.
> 
> Since there's no PRIxxx defined that explicitly maps to long long, we
> could put one in ffitest.h and use that.
> Something like:
> 
> #ifdef WIN64
> #define PRIdLL PRId64
> #define PRIuLL PRIu64
> #else
> #define PRIdLL lld
> #define PRIuLL llu
> #endif

Sounds OK.

Andrew.