Heya gents,
Just a quick one to clean the remaining warnings in the title.
I realize that this reverts a couple of the things I sent on my last
patch but several of the lpr functions really return nothing so should
have been void in the first place.
Thanks as always,
Barry deFreese (aka bddebia
> Roland McGrath, le Mon 13 Nov 2006 13:44:30 -0800, a écrit :
> > > I don't disagree. Have a suggestion for a better place to declare it?
> >
> > Some machine-independent header included by the relevant code.
>
> kern/model_dep.h then?
If you invent a header, don't give it a silly name like th
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 22:53 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Roland McGrath, le Mon 13 Nov 2006 13:43:10 -0800, a écrit :
> > > Roland McGrath, le Sun 12 Nov 2006 16:50:48 -0800, a écrit :
> > > > Decls for copyin et al do not belong in a machine header.
> > >
> > > Then why simple_lock_pause, spl*
Roland McGrath, le Mon 13 Nov 2006 13:43:10 -0800, a écrit :
> > Roland McGrath, le Sun 12 Nov 2006 16:50:48 -0800, a écrit :
> > > Decls for copyin et al do not belong in a machine header.
> >
> > Then why simple_lock_pause, spl*, for instance, do?
>
> Users of simple_lock_pause use .
Ok, but k
Roland McGrath, le Mon 13 Nov 2006 13:44:30 -0800, a écrit :
> > I don't disagree. Have a suggestion for a better place to declare it?
>
> Some machine-independent header included by the relevant code.
kern/model_dep.h then?
Samuel
___
Bug-hurd mail
Hello!
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 10:07:32PM +, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> CVSROOT: /cvsroot/hurd
> Module name: gnumach
> Branch: gnumach-1-branch
> Changes by: Samuel Thibault 06/11/13 22:07:32
> 2006-11-13 Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
>
> Roland McGrath, le Sun 12 Nov 2006 16:50:48 -0800, a écrit :
> > Decls for copyin et al do not belong in a machine header.
>
> Then why simple_lock_pause, spl*, for instance, do?
Users of simple_lock_pause use .
spl* are used only by machine-specific code, I think.
___
> I don't disagree. Have a suggestion for a better place to declare it?
Some machine-independent header included by the relevant code.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.USA / Canada / Australia
visa classic 20$
visa gold/platinum/bussines/signature 30$
master card 25$
amex 25$
Europe / Asia
visa classic 65$
visa gold/platinum/bussines/signature 100$
master card 70$
payment methods: w
Hi,
Thomas Schwinge, le Mon 13 Nov 2006 19:29:53 +0100, a écrit :
> +unsigned int __stack_chk_guard = 12345;
I'd say this should be something like a value with higher bits set, so
that it wouldn't be a valid pointer, even for reading.
Samuel
___
Bug-
Hello!
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:36:20PM +0100, I wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:14:19PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 08 Nov 2006 22:40:54 +0100, a ?crit :
> > > Is it feasible to have the `-fstack-protector' functionality in GNU Mach
> > > and GRUB2 (and how to
- Original Message -
From: "Barry deFreese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:39 AM
Subject: Gnumach cleanup - 'return type defaults to int'
As per Samuels request, here is a patch to clean up all warnings for
non-typed functions.
Hi again folks. Somethi
Roland McGrath, le Sun 12 Nov 2006 16:50:48 -0800, a écrit :
> Decls for copyin et al do not belong in a machine header.
Then why simple_lock_pause, spl*, for instance, do?
Samuel
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
13 matches
Mail list logo
