On 9/4/2014 11:21 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Joel Sherrill
> <joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote:
>> ---
>> cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-buffer.c | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-buffer.c
>> b/cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-buffer.c
>> index 3d89f5f..4192b21 100644
>> --- a/cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-buffer.c
>> +++ b/cpukit/libfs/src/rfs/rtems-rfs-buffer.c
>> @@ -52,13 +52,12 @@ rtems_rfs_scan_chain (rtems_chain_control* chain,
>> buffer = (rtems_rfs_buffer*) node;
>>
>> if (rtems_rfs_trace (RTEMS_RFS_TRACE_BUFFER_CHAINS))
>> - printf ("%" PRIuPTR " ", ((intptr_t) buffer->user));
>> + printf ("%p ", buffer->user);
>>
>> if (((rtems_rfs_buffer_block) ((intptr_t)(buffer->user))) == block)
>> {
>> if (rtems_rfs_trace (RTEMS_RFS_TRACE_BUFFER_CHAINS))
>> - printf (": found block=%" PRIuPTR "\n",
>> - ((intptr_t)(buffer->user)));
>> + printf (": found block=%p\n", buffer->user);
> What is the warning this fixed? The "PRIuPTR" should be the right way
> to print an (unsigned) pointer. Perhaps changing the cast to
> (uintptr_t) would fix the warning?
Give me a few hours. I am not sure which architecture/BSP tripped this. I
reverted the patch locally but will need to build all to find it again.
>> (*count)--;
>> rtems_chain_extract_unprotected (node);
>> --
>> 1.9.3
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@rtems.org
>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
