On 08/09/2013 07:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:45:16AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >> Compiling with gcc 4.1.2 (RHEL 5) complains: >> >> virdbustest.c: In function 'testMessageSimple': >> virdbustest.c:61: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type >> virdbustest.c:62: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type >> virdbustest.c: In function 'testMessageArray': >> virdbustest.c:183: warning: this decimal constant is unsigned only in ISO C90 >> virdbustest.c: In function 'testMessageStruct': >> virdbustest.c:239: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type >> virdbustest.c:240: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type >> >> * tests/virdbustest.c (testMessageSiple, testMessageArray) >> (testMessageStruct): Don't violate C89 constant constraints. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> Pushing under the build-breaker rule. >> >> @@ -178,9 +178,9 @@ static int testMessageArray(const void *args ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) >> DBusMessage *msg = NULL; >> int ret = -1; >> const char *in_str1 = "Hello"; >> - int in_int32a = 1000000000, out_int32a = 0; >> - int in_int32b = 2000000000, out_int32b = 0; >> - int in_int32c = 3000000000, out_int32c = 0; >> + int in_int32a = 100000000, out_int32a = 0; >> + int in_int32b = 200000000, out_int32b = 0; >> + int in_int32c = 300000000, out_int32c = 0; > > I actually intentionally choose 300000000 as a value that would > be above MAX_INT32 (2147483647). I guess what I really should > have done was use something like -2147483640 instead, so we > didn't rely on wrapping of 3000000000. > > Could you change this test to use a large -ve number for the > 3rd int, rather than stripping a 0 from all 3. Will do. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list