Re: [PATCH 1/6] Bitfield without explicit sign should be a warning, not an error

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Bitfield without explicit sign should be a warning, not an error
From: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:09:51 -0700
Cc: linux-sparse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070628053954.30704.66440.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20070628053954.30704.66440.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622)

Pavel Roskin wrote:
> The -Wdefault-bitfield-sign is supposed to control a warning, just like
> other -W options.

I've applied this patch; thanks!

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

References:
- [PATCH 1/6] Bitfield without explicit sign should be a warning, not an error
  - From: Pavel Roskin

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Hardcode actual type sizes, add -m32 support
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cgcc: preserve sparse exit code if -no-compile is used
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a simple test script, embed expected results into test files
Next by thread: [PATCH 1/4] add end position to symbols
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Newbies FAQ] [LKML] [IETF Annouce] [DCCP] [Netdev] [Networking] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Trinity Fuzzer Tool]

Powered by Linux