| Message ID | 1403105835-25535-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 06/18/2014 09:37 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > in human mode, we are creating the string: > > 16-31 (16-31) > > instead of > > 16-17 (10-1f) > > because we forgot to pass 'true' as the human parameter on one of the > two calls to format_string. > Also, this is a worsening of quality; previously we would produce > > 16 (0x10) > > to make it obvious which number was hex. > Fix these issues. > > Reported-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > --- > qapi/string-output-visitor.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/qapi/string-output-visitor.c b/qapi/string-output-visitor.c > index 8735b00..e9aca3b 100644 > --- a/qapi/string-output-visitor.c > +++ b/qapi/string-output-visitor.c > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static void format_string(StringOutputVisitor *sov, Range *r, bool next, > { > if (r->end - r->begin > 1) { > if (human) { > - g_string_append_printf(sov->string, "%" PRIx64 "-%" PRIx64, > + g_string_append_printf(sov->string, "0x%" PRIx64 "-%" PRIx64, The pre-series code used "%#"PRIx64 instead of "0x%"PRIx64; the only difference is that you now output 0x0 instead of 0 if that happens to be one of the values of the range. I personally think "0 (0x0)" is nicer than the shorter "0 (0)", so I'm okay with it. Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
diff --git a/qapi/string-output-visitor.c b/qapi/string-output-visitor.c index 8735b00..e9aca3b 100644 --- a/qapi/string-output-visitor.c +++ b/qapi/string-output-visitor.c @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static void format_string(StringOutputVisitor *sov, Range *r, bool next, { if (r->end - r->begin > 1) { if (human) { - g_string_append_printf(sov->string, "%" PRIx64 "-%" PRIx64, + g_string_append_printf(sov->string, "0x%" PRIx64 "-%" PRIx64, r->begin, r->end - 1); } else { @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static void format_string(StringOutputVisitor *sov, Range *r, bool next, } } else { if (human) { - g_string_append_printf(sov->string, "%" PRIx64, r->begin); + g_string_append_printf(sov->string, "0x%" PRIx64, r->begin); } else { g_string_append_printf(sov->string, "%" PRId64, r->begin); } @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static void print_type_int(Visitor *v, int64_t *obj, const char *name, g_string_append(sov->string, " ("); while (l) { Range *r = l->data; - format_string(sov, r, l->next != NULL, false); + format_string(sov, r, l->next != NULL, true); l = l->next; } g_string_append(sov->string, ")");
in human mode, we are creating the string: 16-31 (16-31) instead of 16-17 (10-1f) because we forgot to pass 'true' as the human parameter on one of the two calls to format_string. Also, this is a worsening of quality; previously we would produce 16 (0x10) to make it obvious which number was hex. Fix these issues. Reported-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> --- qapi/string-output-visitor.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)