Il 08/03/2012 17:25, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>>
>> Looks like a GCC bug where
>>
>> x = y = 0;
>>
>> is converted to
>>
>> x = (y = 0) != 0;
>
> Curious, why convert like this? What does this optimization do?
Nothing, it's just that if "y = 0" is an int (for some reason, I didn't
che
On 03/08/2012 10:08 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 08/03/2012 16:26, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
I had to drop this patch from the trivial patches tree, it tickles a
new gcc warning. Please resend with the necessary change.
I cannot reproduce it on my build host here with gcc Debian 4.6.2-12
but
Il 08/03/2012 16:26, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
> I had to drop this patch from the trivial patches tree, it tickles a
> new gcc warning. Please resend with the necessary change.
>
> I cannot reproduce it on my build host here with gcc Debian 4.6.2-12
> but Anthony reports the following Ubuntu/L
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Stefan Weil wrote:
> This patch fixes warnings reported by splint:
>
> For variables which are packed in a single bit, a signed data type
> like 'int' does not make much sense.
>
> There is no obvious reason why the two values should be packed,
> so I removed the p
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 02:35:47PM +0100, Stefan Weil wrote:
> This patch fixes warnings reported by splint:
>
> For variables which are packed in a single bit, a signed data type
> like 'int' does not make much sense.
>
> There is no obvious reason why the two values should be packed,
> so I rem
This patch fixes warnings reported by splint:
For variables which are packed in a single bit, a signed data type
like 'int' does not make much sense.
There is no obvious reason why the two values should be packed,
so I removed the packing and changed the data type to bool
because both are used as
