On Monday 08 October 2012, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> On 06/10/12 00:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On NOMMU ARM, the __addr_ok() and __range_ok() macros do not evaluate
> > their arguments, which may lead to harmless build warnings in some
> > code where the variables are not used otherwise. Adding a
On Monday 08 October 2012, Greg Ungerer wrote:
On 06/10/12 00:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On NOMMU ARM, the __addr_ok() and __range_ok() macros do not evaluate
their arguments, which may lead to harmless build warnings in some
code where the variables are not used otherwise. Adding a cast to
On 06/10/12 00:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On NOMMU ARM, the __addr_ok() and __range_ok() macros do not evaluate
their arguments, which may lead to harmless build warnings in some
code where the variables are not used otherwise. Adding a cast to void
gets rid of the warning and does not make any
On 06/10/12 00:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On NOMMU ARM, the __addr_ok() and __range_ok() macros do not evaluate
their arguments, which may lead to harmless build warnings in some
code where the variables are not used otherwise. Adding a cast to void
gets rid of the warning and does not make any
On NOMMU ARM, the __addr_ok() and __range_ok() macros do not evaluate
their arguments, which may lead to harmless build warnings in some
code where the variables are not used otherwise. Adding a cast to void
gets rid of the warning and does not make any semantic changes.
Without this patch,
On NOMMU ARM, the __addr_ok() and __range_ok() macros do not evaluate
their arguments, which may lead to harmless build warnings in some
code where the variables are not used otherwise. Adding a cast to void
gets rid of the warning and does not make any semantic changes.
Without this patch,
6 matches
Mail list logo