(This may happen in mainline, but I haven't checked there.) sparse complains about bitfields not being marked as signed or unsigned and about one-bit bitfields being (default) signed (sign bit only!): CHECK /local/linsrc/linux-next-20080807/arch/x86/kernel/tlb_64.c include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:141:22: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:143:25: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:145:15: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:148:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:151:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:154:18: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:156:18: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned' include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:160:14: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:164:18: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:178:19: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:186:16: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:190:18: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:193:16: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield CC arch/x86/kernel/tlb_64.o Can those struct bitfields be marked as signed or unsigned, please? Thanks. --- ~Randy Linux Plumbers Conference, 17-19 September 2008, Portland, Oregon USA http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
