From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4477
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: Am I using PRIxPTR wrong?  Musl-libc complains, glibc
 doesn't
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:59:16 -0500
Message-ID: <20140114205916.GC24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <loom.20140114T212850-606@post.gmane.org>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389733163 32060 80.91.229.3 (14 Jan 2014 20:59:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:59:23 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-4481-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jan 14 21:59:30 2014
Return-path: <musl-return-4481-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-4481-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1W3B58-0005li-Ha
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:59:30 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 13438 invoked by uid 550); 14 Jan 2014 20:59:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 13430 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2014 20:59:29 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <loom.20140114T212850-606@post.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4477
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4477>

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:36:36PM +0000, David Wuertele wrote:
> /* test.c - demo difference between glibc and musl-libc wrt PRIxPTR
> **
> ** Both native (x86_64 glibc) and target (arm musl-libc) define
> ** PRIxPTR as "lx", but uintptr_t as unsigned int:
> **
> **   $ gcc -E test.c | grep uintptr_t
> **   typedef unsigned long int uintptr_t;
> **     printf ("main is at 0x%""l" "x""\n", (uintptr_t) main);
> **
> **   $ arm-linux-musleabishf-gcc -E test.c | grep uintptr_t
> **   typedef unsigned int uintptr_t;
> **     printf ("main is at 0x%""lx""\n", (uintptr_t) main);
> **
> ** While native gcc doesn't complain, target gcc does:
> ** 
> **   $ gcc -c test.c -Wformat
> **
> **   $ arm-linux-musleabishf-gcc -c test.c -Wformat
> **   test.c: In function ‘main’:
> **   test.c:6:3: warning: format ‘%lx’ expects argument of type
> ** ‘long unsigned int’, but argument 2 has type ‘unsigned int’ [-Wformat]
> */
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <inttypes.h>
> int
> main (int ac, char *av[])
> {
>   printf ("main is at 0x%"PRIxPTR"\n", (uintptr_t) main);
>   return 0;
> }
> 

I suspect your compiler was miscompiled for a non-EABI ARM
configuration; perhaps putting "shf" on the end of the maching tuple
string messed it up. I can't find the exact logic for UINTPTR_TYPE,
but my copy of gcc-4.7.3/gcc/config/arm/arm.h contains:

#define SIZE_TYPE (TARGET_AAPCS_BASED ? "unsigned int" : "long unsigned int")

suggesting that for AAPCS-based (EABI) targets, the correct type for
pointer-sized integer types is int, whereas on legacy targets, a long
type was used.

Note that if your compiler was miscompiled for non-EABI, many other
things will be wrong, like alignment/padding of 64-bit arguments, etc.

Rich