On 10/14/2014 3:30 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 14/10/2014 11:24 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> On October 14, 2014 1:29:50 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
>>> wrote:
On 13/10/14 17:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wr
On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 14/10/2014 11:24 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> On October 14, 2014 1:29:50 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
>> wrote:
>>> On 13/10/14 17:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill
On 14/10/2014 11:24 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On October 14, 2014 1:29:50 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
On 13/10/14 17:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
NOTE: For defaults for weak symbols, I am just addin
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 13/10/14 17:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
NOTE: For defaults for weak symbols, I am just adding
a prototype to the C f
On October 14, 2014 1:29:50 AM CDT, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>On 13/10/14 17:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
NOTE: For defaults for weak symbols, I am just adding
a prototype to the C file.
>>
On 13/10/14 17:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
NOTE: For defaults for weak symbols, I am just adding
a prototype to the C file.
How do you then ensure that a non-weak implementation has the same
signature?
On 10/13/2014 10:51 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Joel Sherrill
> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2014 9:48 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>> These 23 look good to me. -Gedare
>> Thanks. I know this many patches is a real pain but it
>> is unfortunately needed to get the warning count
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
>
> On 10/13/2014 9:48 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> These 23 look good to me. -Gedare
> Thanks. I know this many patches is a real pain but it
> is unfortunately needed to get the warning count down.
>
> The unique warning count has dropped from
On 10/13/2014 10:43 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> NOTE: For defaults for weak symbols, I am just adding
>> a prototype to the C file.
> How do you then ensure that a non-weak implementation has the same
> signature?
>
Don't ask me. I didn't add any o
On 10/13/2014 05:18 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
NOTE: For defaults for weak symbols, I am just adding
a prototype to the C file.
How do you then ensure that a non-weak implementation has the same
signature?
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Ger
On 10/13/2014 9:48 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> These 23 look good to me. -Gedare
Thanks. I know this many patches is a real pain but it
is unfortunately needed to get the warning count down.
The unique warning count has dropped from ~1750 to
~800 in the past week. Of those ~800, there are still
533
Hi
It was rainy here over the weekend and I hacked at warnings.
I have a branch with 80 patches pending. That is obviously
too much to send to devel in one batch. This is the first
batch of 23 and these are the more unique patches and
a couple of cases of "apply a pattern"
+ Clean up, then remove
12 matches
Mail list logo
