RFR (XS): 8044071: Print format/argument warnings

[Lois Foltan]

On 5/28/2014 11:09 AM, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>
> On 2014-05-28 04:44, Lois Foltan wrote:
>> Hi Mikael,
>>
>> Looks good.  One question concerning a change in 
>> nativeInst_sparc.cpp.  It seems that in most cases "0x%x" was changed 
>> in favor of INTPTR_FORMAT, but in NativeMovConstRegPatching::print() 
>> you did the opposite change, INTPTR_FORMAT to "0x%x".  Just curious 
>> if there was a reason for that?  It would be more consistent for 
>> example, with your change to NativeMoveConstReg::print(), if it was 
>> left as an INTPTR_FORMAT.
>
> In the cases where I changed INTPTR_FORMAT to 0x%x it is because the 
> argument is in fact an int. While I could upcast to an intptr_t 
> instead I personally think that is more confusing than it is helpful.

Got it, thank you for the explanation.  Looks good.
Lois

>
> Cheers,
> Mikael
>
>>
>> Minor - copyrights on all files need to be updated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lois
>>
>> On 5/27/2014 6:22 PM, Mikael Vidstedt wrote:
>>>
>>> Please review the below change which addresses a number of print 
>>> format/argument mismatches when compiling linux/sparc using gcc.
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044071
>>> Webrev: 
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mikael/webrevs/8044071/webrev.00/webrev/
>>>
>>> Most of these are straightforward changes to INTPTR_FORMAT & adding 
>>> p2i. A couple of changes worth bringing up:
>>>
>>> * nativeInst_sparc.cpp
>>>
>>> I changed the format of the offset in mov related prints (two 
>>> occurrences) to %d, since it's really a signed decimal int. This 
>>> will hopefully reduce confusion when the offset is negative, where 
>>> previously it would have looked like a relatively large positive 
>>> offset.
>>>
>>> * macroAssembler_sparc.cpp
>>>
>>> The new code is in line with other similar patterns in the same 
>>> file, but the ugly cast should IMHO really be rewritten to cast 
>>> through a union. RFE?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mikael
>>>
>>
>