Is this bug worth fixing on 5?
My guess is not worthwhile.
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 8:05 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
> This define represents the last valid interrupt vector number.
>
> Update #3269.
> ---
> testsuites/smptests/smpcapture02/init.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/testsuites/smptests/smpcapture02/init.c
> b/testsuites/smptests/smpcapture02/init.c
> index 9cf1f0b006..329fd344e6 100644
> --- a/testsuites/smptests/smpcapture02/init.c
> +++ b/testsuites/smptests/smpcapture02/init.c
> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ static void Init(rtems_task_argument arg)
> test(cpu_count);
>
> /* Try to find the clock interrupt handler */
> - for ( vec = 0; vec < BSP_INTERRUPT_VECTOR_MAX; vec++ ) {
> + for ( vec = 0; vec <= BSP_INTERRUPT_VECTOR_MAX; vec++ ) {
> rtems_interrupt_handler_iterate(vec, locate_clock_interrupt_handler,
> &cih);
> if ( cih.found )
> break;
> --
> 2.26.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel@rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
