Hi,
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> A (somewhat unclean) solution is to make the type change based on the
> platform. Are there any defines present to test if we're in a Solaris
> environment? I don't have access to any Solaris machines myself so I
> can't really test.
Just ignore it
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Should I extract the changes for bkbits and make a reversed patch?
No, go through the warnings, analyze each one and choose an appropriate
solution. You might want to keep notes, which you can post with the
changelogs, so one can reproduce, why a
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Is there some easy way to check the file history? Downloading a couple
> of old kernels just for one file is a bit of a hassle. And I don't run
> bk so I can't access that repository (is it even still present after
> Linus' move?).
http://linux.bkb
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> GCC 4 checks the signedness of pointer casts and generates a whole bunch
> of warnings for code in scripts/ (which makes heavy use of signed char
> strings).
>
> This patch adds explicit casts.
Just adding explicit all over the place is really the
Roman Zippel wrote:
>Just adding explicit all over the place is really the worst solution.
>Check if you can adjust data types/function prototypes.
>Lots of the signed stuff was added as a warning fix for Solaris, I'd
>rather drop that than adding casts all over the place. So you also may
>want
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 14:59 +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote:
[...]
> It should only be a matter of reversing the patches for Solaris then.
> But that will of course bring back the warnings on that platform. I'd
> say we should stick with what the standard says. Unfortunatly I don't
The C-standard about
Roman Zippel wrote:
>
>http://linux.bkbits.net/ still works.
>
>
>
Thanks.
It should only be a matter of reversing the patches for Solaris then.
But that will of course bring back the warnings on that platform. I'd
say we should stick with what the standard says. Unfortunatly I don't
have acce
GCC 4 checks the signedness of pointer casts and generates a whole bunch
of warnings for code in scripts/ (which makes heavy use of signed char
strings).
This patch adds explicit casts.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-wbsd/scripts/basic/fixdep.c
=
Roman Zippel wrote:
>
>No, go through the warnings, analyze each one and choose an appropriate
>solution. You might want to keep notes, which you can post with the
>changelogs, so one can reproduce, why a certain change was done.
>
>
>
The problem is that they're mostly calls to library funct
Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there some easy way to check the file history? Downloading a couple
> of old kernels just for one file is a bit of a hassle. And I don't run
> bk so I can't access that repository
You can use the web interface (bkbits.net).
Andreas.
--
Andreas Sch
Pierre Ossman writes:
> GCC 4 checks the signedness of pointer casts and generates a whole bunch
> of warnings for code in scripts/ (which makes heavy use of signed char
> strings).
>
> This patch adds explicit casts.
This is way ugly. The _real_ bug is that someone decided to store
plain te
11 matches
Mail list logo
