Hi Gedare,
Please find the patch against the current master head attached.
Kind Regards
Ralf Kirchner
Am 06.09.2013 18:53, schrieb Gedare Bloom:
> OK. Can you send the patch against the current master head (rather
> than revert)? I am not able to commit today, but maybe someone else
> can
I didn't want to do this much work but the device driver array and as declared
as [] with no size. The maximum drivers was calculated as thr number of
elements in the array. This left only the empty null slot at the end for
dynamic drivers. If you had more than one dynamic driver, the array decl
On 2013-09-10 13:26, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I didn't want to do this much work but the device driver array and as declared
as [] with no size. The maximum drivers was calculated as thr number of
elements in the array. This left only the empty null slot at the end for
dynamic drivers. If you had
Hi,
Is this condition even possible?
Also, would it make more sense to just assign task_load to 0, or maybe
not scale it (just set it to load[i])?
-Gedare
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Rempel, Cynthia
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a patch to check for dividing by zero in capture-cli.c...
>
>
Gedare Bloom wrote:
Hi,
Is this condition even possible?
Also, would it make more sense to just assign task_load to 0, or maybe
not scale it (just set it to load[i])?
I agree, the load should be set to 0.
Chris
___
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-de
>
>From: Chris Johns [chr...@rtems.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:53 PM
>To: Gedare Bloom
>Cc: Rempel, Cynthia; rtems-devel@rtems.org
>Subject: Re: Coverity CID: 1063861
>
>Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Is this condition even possible?
According to
