Stefan Roese wrote:
On Thursday 09 July 2009 14:24:49 Jerry Van Baren wrote:
All this would increase the code size for those boards not supporting the 64bit printf format. Not sure by how much, but I suggest to just fix the problem by supporting this format correctly instead of adding new code to print some warnings here.
Best regards, Stefan
That is what Scott is trying to do, but fixing 64bit printf causes a 2K++ increase in size to the boards that don't currently support 64bit printf (some of which are broken due to the error). Wolfgang is resisting that.
Adding code to print a warning and handle the varargs properly will probably be less than 100 bytes. It looks like this is the compromise Wolfgang favors.
I doubt that this could be done in less than 100 bytes. A descriptive error message string alone will probably be around >= 60 chars. But I know this is nitpicking.
Agreed. FWIIW, I wasn't assuming a /descriptive/ error message. I was assuming printf would simply print the format string, e.g. "%lld", rather than a possibly erroneous value. Another alternative would be to do the spreadsheet idiom and print hashes "########".
I'm still voting for adding this 2k and doing it correctly on all boards. With the option to disable this 64bit support (as Scott suggested) on boards with very tight resources.
Me too. <shrug>
Best regards, Stefan
Thanks, gvb