"Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:17:25PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 08/28/2017 09:41 AM, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
>> > On 08/23/2017 01:53 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> >> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> >>> Compiler gets confused with the size of
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:51:23PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> > On 08/23/2017 01:53 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >>> Compiler gets confused with the size of the struct, so move form
> >>> g_new0() to g_malloc0().
Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> On 08/23/2017 01:53 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>> Compiler gets confused with the size of the struct, so move form
>>> g_new0() to g_malloc0().
>>>
>>> I *think* that the problem is in gcc (or glib for that matter),
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:17:25PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/28/2017 09:41 AM, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> > On 08/23/2017 01:53 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> >> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >>> Compiler gets confused with the size of the struct, so move form
> >>> g_ne
On 08/28/2017 09:41 AM, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 08/23/2017 01:53 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>> Compiler gets confused with the size of the struct, so move form
>>> g_new0() to g_malloc0().
>>>
>>> I *think* that the problem is in gcc (or
On 08/23/2017 01:53 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Compiler gets confused with the size of the struct, so move form
>> g_new0() to g_malloc0().
>>
>> I *think* that the problem is in gcc (or glib for that matter), but
>> the documentation of the
* Juan Quintela (quint...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Compiler gets confused with the size of the struct, so move form
> g_new0() to g_malloc0().
>
> I *think* that the problem is in gcc (or glib for that matter), but
> the documentation of the g_new0 states that 1sts first argument is an
> struct type,
Compiler gets confused with the size of the struct, so move form
g_new0() to g_malloc0().
I *think* that the problem is in gcc (or glib for that matter), but
the documentation of the g_new0 states that 1sts first argument is an
struct type, and uint32_t is not an struct type.
Signed-off-by: Juan
