On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 09:55:58AM +0800, Richard Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:31:38PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:52:44PM +0800, Richard Yang wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 02:11:45PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >> >On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:42:44PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 21:04 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:17 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:42:44PM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 21:04 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:17 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 09:55:58AM +0800, Richard Yang wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:31:38PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:52:44PM +0800, Richard Yang wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 02:11:45PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200,
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 21:04 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:17 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > > > Am Freitag, den
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:17 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:52:44PM +0800, Richard Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 02:11:45PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> >> Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> >> > From: Yuanhan Liu
> >> >
> >>
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:17 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > > > Am Freitag, den
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > From: Yuanhan Liu
> > > >
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:17:57PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > > > Am Freitag, den
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > > From: Yuanhan Liu
> > >
> > > Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> > From: Yuanhan Liu
> >
> > Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something similay
> > like following:
> > void * __dummy = NULL;
> > __buf
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
From: Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com
Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something similay
like following:
void * __dummy =
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
From: Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com
Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 03:17:57PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
From: Yuanhan Liu
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:17 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:52:44PM +0800, Richard Yang wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 02:11:45PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
From: Yuanhan Liu
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:17 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 07:38:31AM
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 21:04 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 15:17 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:06AM +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 14:11
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
> From: Yuanhan Liu
>
> Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something similay
> like following:
> void * __dummy = NULL;
> __buf = __dummy;
>
> __dummy is defined as void *. Thus it will not trigger
From: Yuanhan Liu
Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something similay
like following:
void * __dummy = NULL;
__buf = __dummy;
__dummy is defined as void *. Thus it will not trigger warnings as
expected.
Second, we don't need that kind of check. Since the
From: Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com
Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something similay
like following:
void * __dummy = NULL;
__buf = __dummy;
__dummy is defined as void *. Thus it will not trigger warnings as
expected.
Second, we don't need that
Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 09:46 +0800 schrieb Yuanhan Liu:
From: Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com
Firstly, this kind of type check doesn't work. It does something similay
like following:
void * __dummy = NULL;
__buf = __dummy;
__dummy is defined as void *. Thus it
24 matches
Mail list logo