On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 03:51:33PM +, Adam Hoka wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: ahoka
Date: Thu Nov 24 15:51:33 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/sys/sys: vnode.h
src/sys/ufs: files.ufs
src/sys/ufs/ufs: ufsmount.h
Added Files:
src/sys/ufs/chfs:
Am 24.11.11 19:44, schrieb Joerg Sonnenberger:
Module Name: src
Committed By: joerg
Date: Thu Nov 24 18:44:25 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/lib/libc/string: wcscspn.c wcspbrk.c
Added Files:
src/lib/libc/string: wcscspn_bloom.h
This breaks the build on i386, at least.
On 11/25/2011 9:23 AM, Matthias Scheler wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 03:51:33PM +, Adam Hoka wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By:ahoka
Date:Thu Nov 24 15:51:33 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/sys/sys: vnode.h
src/sys/ufs: files.ufs
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 09:00:51AM +, Matthias Scheler wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: tron
Date: Fri Nov 25 09:00:51 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/lib/libc/string: wcscspn_bloom.h
Log Message:
Add explicit casts to make lint happy and fix the NetBSD/i386 build.
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:01:34PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Log Message:
Add explicit casts to make lint happy and fix the NetBSD/i386 build.
Can we please just get rid of this PoS? This doesn't even qualify as bad
signal to noise ratio.
Sure it does. You should just have
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:57:29PM +, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:01:34PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Log Message:
Add explicit casts to make lint happy and fix the NetBSD/i386 build.
Can we please just get rid of this PoS? This doesn't even qualify as
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Sure it does. You should just have written the code using (size_t)1,
or even just 1UL, instead of 1ULL. There is no port where size_t is
unsigned long long.
... Unless what you meant was get rid of all 32-bit ports
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:18:19PM +, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:15:12PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Sure it does. You should just have written the code using (size_t)1,
or even just 1UL, instead of 1ULL. There is no port where size_t is
unsigned long
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Sure it does. You should just have written the code using (size_t)1,
or even just 1UL, instead of 1ULL. There is no port where size_t is
unsigned long long.
... Unless what you meant was get rid of all
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:44:24PM +, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Sure it does. You should just have written the code using (size_t)1,
or even just 1UL, instead of 1ULL. There is no port where size_t is
unsigned
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:48:30PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Sure it does. You should just have written the code using
(size_t)1,
or even just 1UL, instead of 1ULL. There is no port where size_t is
unsigned long long.
... Unless what you meant was
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 04:23:46PM +, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:48:30PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
Sure it does. You should just have written the code using
(size_t)1,
or even just 1UL, instead of 1ULL. There is no port where size_t
is
On 11/22/11 4:25 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: tls
Date: Tue Nov 22 21:25:42 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
[...]
src/sys/conf: std
Log Message:
The rnd pseudo-device is not really optional, because it is in the same
source file as the
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 05:40:51PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
And why should the/any static analyzer have to figure that out when
coding it right makes it a nonissue?
Because that's what is making warnings useful. To not complain about
non-issues.
Like this?
const char *
14 matches
Mail list logo
