On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:37:05PM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> However it is too weak. On some targets clock_nanosleep is defined
> conditionally in #if preprocessor directives.
> There is no way to detect that with grep.
Is this a configuration option for uClibc? If so, then correct
solution is
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 04:56:48PM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> This is not a fix of an actual issue rather than prevention of a potential
> issue.
> On two places a fixed array size (different to the actual size) is used in
> snprintf.
> Replace with sizeof(array)
I merged this change, but I co
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 03:58:39PM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> TLV_PRIORITY1 and TLV_PRIORITY2 cases in do_set_action() use the same repeated
> piece of generic code for setting one-value parameter. Remove the duplicated
> code and let both cases use the same code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Kulhavy
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:08:53PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 03:58:40PM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> > + case TLV_DOMAIN:
> > + mtd = (struct management_tlv_datum *) tlv->data;
> > + c->dds.domainNumber = mtd->val;
> > + *changed = 1;
>
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 10:02:06PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:08:53PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > Shouldn't this also reset the state of the clock?
Thinking out loud, the cleanest way might be to introduce a new fault
type called "reconfiguration" with a defa
Fix "may be used uninitialized in this function" warnings for state and
timestamping.
Signed-off-by: Petr Kulhavy
---
phc2sys.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/phc2sys.c b/phc2sys.c
index 4c8b552..f3cfed8 100644
--- a/phc2sys.c
+++ b/phc2sys.c
@@ -1037,7 +1037
Hi Richard,
the clock_nanosleep test fails in 6 of 49 built targets of Buildroot:
br-arm-full-nothread, br-bfin-full, br-m68k-68040-full,
br-microblazeel-full, br-openrisc-uclibc, br-sparc-uclibc.
They all use uclibc.
I'm not a uclibc expert, so I can't answer under what conditions
clock_nanos
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:09:06AM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> I'm not a uclibc expert, so I can't answer under what conditions
> clock_nanosleep is defined. TYou would need to ask the uclibc authors.
And just who might they be?
If you want this to work on uClibc, then *you* could ask them!
> B
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 10:32:10PM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
> Fix "may be used uninitialized in this function" warnings for state and
> timestamping.
Please tell us more:
What gcc version produces this warning?
Is the warning a false positive or not?
> @@ -1037,7 +1037,7 @@ static int auto_in
