On 23.04.2018 12:08, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:45:20 +0200
> Thomas Huth wrote:
>
>> "size_t" should be an unsigned type according to the C standard.
>> Thus we should also use this convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid
>> confusion. I checked the sources, and apart fro
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 09:45:20 +0200
Thomas Huth wrote:
> "size_t" should be an unsigned type according to the C standard.
> Thus we should also use this convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid
> confusion. I checked the sources, and apart from one spot in libc.c, the
> code should all be fine
On 04/16/2018 03:45 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> "size_t" should be an unsigned type according to the C standard.
> Thus we should also use this convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid
> confusion. I checked the sources, and apart from one spot in libc.c, the
> code should all be fine with this ch
On 04/16/2018 09:45 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> "size_t" should be an unsigned type according to the C standard.
> Thus we should also use this convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid
> confusion. I checked the sources, and apart from one spot in libc.c, the
> code should all be fine with this
On 04/16/2018 09:45 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> "size_t" should be an unsigned type according to the C standard.
> Thus we should also use this convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid
> confusion. I checked the sources, and apart from one spot in libc.c, the
> code should all be fine with this
"size_t" should be an unsigned type according to the C standard.
Thus we should also use this convention in the s390-ccw firmware to avoid
confusion. I checked the sources, and apart from one spot in libc.c, the
code should all be fine with this change.
Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bu