On 2. juni. 2009, at 17.48, Ravi Kondamuru wrote:
> Can you provide the location or forward the file, reading which
> nstrace_open is going into a loop?
> I want to test it with a fix.
I have already provided a fix for this in revision 28585, and in later
revisions improved some handling. Pl
Stig,
Can you provide the location or forward the file, reading which nstrace_open
is going into a loop?
I want to test it with a fix.
thanks,
Ravi.
2009/6/2 Stig Bjørlykke
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Ravi Kondamuru
> wrote:
> > The compilation on ubuntu-7.10-x86-64 seems to be completing
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Ravi Kondamuru wrote:
> The compilation on ubuntu-7.10-x86-64 seems to be completing without
> warnings now. But it seems to be continuously failing at fuzz-menagerie.
This is because nstrace_open() (really nspm_signature_version()) is
looping on unknown content, a
The compilation on ubuntu-7.10-x86-64 seems to be completing without
warnings now. But it seems to be continuously failing at
fuzz-menagerie. The stdio log file ends like this:
/var/lib/buildbot/menagerie/menagerie/mtl.cap: OK
/var/lib/buildbot/menagerie/menagerie/multi-example.asn1:
ERR
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 10:46:40PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 09:05:29PM +0200, Stig Bj?rlykke wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I don't get the same warnings on my Ubuntu 8.04 or 9.04 as the
> > buildbot get.
> > Anyone able to find a fix for this?
>
> Sample code:
>
> #inclu
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 09:05:29PM +0200, Stig Bj?rlykke wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I don't get the same warnings on my Ubuntu 8.04 or 9.04 as the
> buildbot get.
> Anyone able to find a fix for this?
Sample code:
#include
int main() {
int *ptr = NULL;
int bad = (int) ptr;/* this
On 1. juni. 2009, at 22.07, Kovarththanan Rajaratnam wrote:
> I _think_ you need to cast to (void *) in order to circumvent GCC's
> pointer check. Possible patch attached.
No luck, this does not compile on my Ubuntu 9.04.
--
Stig Bjørlykke
_
Hey,
Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
On 1. juni. 2009, at 21.17, Ravi Kondamuru wrote:
size_t on Win64 is a 64bit value and it is being assigned to a 16bit
value without being typecast.
i am guessing that is the issue here.
Not that one, the one reported by the Ubuntu buildbot.
I _think_ you nee
On 1. juni. 2009, at 21.17, Ravi Kondamuru wrote:
> size_t on Win64 is a 64bit value and it is being assigned to a 16bit
> value without being typecast.
> i am guessing that is the issue here.
Not that one, the one reported by the Ubuntu buildbot.
--
Stig Bjørlykke
Stig,
size_t on Win64 is a 64bit value and it is being assigned to a 16bit value
without being typecast.
i am guessing that is the issue here.
My build on Win32 went fine. I cant explain why it does not complain of loss
of data in this case where size_t must be 32bit.
thanks,
Ravi.
2009/6/1 Sti
Hi.
I don't get the same warnings on my Ubuntu 8.04 or 9.04 as the
buildbot get.
Anyone able to find a fix for this?
--
Stig Bjørlykke
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:http://www.wireshark.org/l
11 matches
Mail list logo
