nathan binkert wrote: > Sorry for the duplicate e-mail. Anyway, I got a new machine that I > just set up yesterday with ubuntu 9.10 and I fixed the new problems. > Can people please look this over? Mostly what happened: > > 1) cstdio was not implicitly included by some other headers, so we > needed to explicitly include it. > 2) gcc detects uninitialized stuff better and several BitUnions had > un-named bit fields and were as a result uninitialized, so I > initialized the BitUnions that failed to zero. > 3) gcc is now a bit more anal about integer overflows and complains if > you do things that can overflow. > > I'd like Gabe at least to check over the BitUnion stuff. >
Setting bitunions to 0 when they weren't being set to anything else should be fine, although it might slow things down and not actually be necessary. Where did these things show up as uninitialized? It could also be that setting bits inside an otherwise uninitialized integer upsets gcc. Gabe _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
