Hello. On 8/27/2016 6:10 AM, Oleg Drokin wrote:> %ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l, > likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int, > but in reality the values printed there are just regular signedSigned? Then you need probably "%d" or "%i"...> ints, so just dropping the l altogether. > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green at linuxhacker.ru>[...] MBR, Sergei
On Aug 27, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:> Hello. > > On 8/27/2016 6:10 AM, Oleg Drokin wrote: > >> %ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l, >> likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int, >> but in reality the values printed there are just regular signed > > Signed? Then you need probably "%d" or "%i"?They are signed in the struct definition, but in reality they designate time, so could not be negative, I imagine?> >> ints, so just dropping the l altogether. >> >> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green at linuxhacker.ru> > [...] > > MBR, Sergei
Hello. On 8/27/2016 6:58 PM, Oleg Drokin wrote:>>> %ul would print an unsigned value and a letter l, >>> likely it was %lu that was meant to print the long int, >>> but in reality the values printed there are just regular signed >> >> Signed? Then you need probably "%d" or "%i"? > > They are signed in the struct definition, but in reality they > designate time, so could not be negative, I imagine?That doesn't matter. If the type is signed, it should be printed as signed. Doesn't gcc complain about the format specifiers not matching the values passed?>>> ints, so just dropping the l altogether. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Oleg Drokin <green at linuxhacker.ru> >> [...]MBR, Sergei