On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:56:03AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 04:11:20AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > > > This avoids a compilation error with -Werror on 32 bit systems as the > > > > pointer size differs from that of an uint64_t. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Francois Gouget <fgouget@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > server/red-replay-qxl.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/server/red-replay-qxl.c b/server/red-replay-qxl.c > > > > index 66acf1e..7a146b6 100644 > > > > --- a/server/red-replay-qxl.c > > > > +++ b/server/red-replay-qxl.c > > > > @@ -1156,7 +1156,7 @@ SPICE_GNUC_VISIBLE QXLCommandExt* > > > > spice_replay_next_cmd(SpiceReplay *replay, > > > > case QXL_CMD_UPDATE: > > > > case QXL_CMD_SURFACE: > > > > info = (QXLReleaseInfo *)cmd->cmd.data; > > > > - info->id = (uint64_t)cmd; > > > > + info->id = (uint64_t)(uintptr_t)cmd; > > > > } > > > > > > > > replay->counter++; > > > > -- > > > > 2.6.4 > > > > > > > > > > I was suggesting just > > > > > > info->id = (uintptr_t)cmd; > > > > Hmm, just received this email, and the v3 patch series now, hours after > > having pushed that series. Weird. Good that it was just a minor changed > > that I missed, sorry for the inconvenience. > > > > Christophe > > > > Not a big deal, just you won't get a warning when you compile on a 128 bit > architecture :( ACK for a followup patch changing just that, but I really don't think this is going to be our biggest problem if that happens :) Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel