On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:03:04AM +0200, Sami Kerola wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:46, Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:44:30AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:33:42PM +0200, Sami Kerola wrote:
> >> > - iter->done = 1;
> >> > + iter->done |= 1;
> >>
> >> Why we need this change? IMHO it's unnecessary.
> >
> > The bit-fields should probably "unsigned int" for better portability,
> > (otherwise it's implementation-defined). I'll fix it.
>
> My thinking with implicit overflow fixes where that the warning may
> mean there is a weird behaving bug. Making sure that the whole source
> compiles without implicit overflow warnings makes tracing of these
> easier. I used same rationality to the only `is always true/false'
> warnings.
Please, copy & past compiler command line and the warnings. I don't
see any warnings with gcc 4.6.0.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
