On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 01:54:10PM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote:
> [--snip-some-of-the-gyping-from-my-initial-diff--]
> > case AML_OBJTYPE_STRING:
> > - if (ival == -1)
> > + if (ival == (uint64_t)-1)
>
> This is what I tried first as well. But this cast fails on my x61s where
> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:54:10 +0300
> From: Paul Irofti
>
> [--snip-some-of-the-gyping-from-my-initial-diff--]
Not really gyped. Already had some of it in my tree from when I
looked at the arithnmetic diff. It was just that your casting
mistakes made me realize what the right way to go was
[--snip-some-of-the-gyping-from-my-initial-diff--]
> case AML_OBJTYPE_STRING:
> - if (ival == -1)
> + if (ival == (uint64_t)-1)
This is what I tried first as well. But this cast fails on my x61s where
ival is set to a 32-bit -1.
> ival = strlen(
> From: Jordan Hargrave
> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 08:13:13 +
>
> you will need to fix AMLOP_ONES as well. It does a (char)opcode typecast,
> which would be 0xff not 0x... if using uint64.
No, that one is fine, at least on machines where char is signed. For
AMLOP_ONES, opcode will be 0xff.
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:13:13AM +, Jordan Hargrave wrote:
>you will need to fix AMLOP_ONES as well. It does a (char)opcode typecast,
>which would be 0xff not 0x... if using uint64.
>
>amlop_match, amlop_wait, amlop_acquire, amlop_condref all will need to
>return AML_ONE
gt; To: o...@drijf.net
> CC: tech@openbsd.org; kette...@openbsd.org; chas...@skynet.be;
jor...@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: aml: Fix integer types to be unsigned
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:33:33PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 01:47:18AM +0300, Paul Irofti
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 05:33:33PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 01:47:18AM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote:
>
> > After the report from a few weeks ago I went ahead and fixed most (if
> > not all) of the signed integer usages in the AML parser.
> >
> > Please have a look at this
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18:27PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:47:18 +0300
> > From: Paul Irofti
> >
> > After the report from a few weeks ago I went ahead and fixed most (if
> > not all) of the signed integer usages in the AML parser.
> >
> > Please have a look at
Strings are always called with -1 (to pull the size-field from strlen itself)
for creation. So technically that could be any large constant as well.
> To: o...@drijf.net
> CC: tech@openbsd.org; kette...@openbsd.org; chas...@skynet.be;
jor...@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: aml: Fix integer
> > +_aml_setvalue(struct aml_value *lhs, int type, u_int64_t ival, const void
> > *bval)
> > {
> > memset(&lhs->_, 0x0, sizeof(lhs->_));
> >
> > @@ -923,7 +920,7 @@ _aml_setvalue(struct aml_value *lhs, int
> > memcpy(lhs->v_buffer, bval, ival);
> > break;
>
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 01:47:18AM +0300, Paul Irofti wrote:
> After the report from a few weeks ago I went ahead and fixed most (if
> not all) of the signed integer usages in the AML parser.
>
> Please have a look at this diff, test it thoroughly and comment/okay it.
Some comments inline.
> +_
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:47:18 +0300
> From: Paul Irofti
>
> After the report from a few weeks ago I went ahead and fixed most (if
> not all) of the signed integer usages in the AML parser.
>
> Please have a look at this diff, test it thoroughly and comment/okay it.
So you ran into the same
After the report from a few weeks ago I went ahead and fixed most (if
not all) of the signed integer usages in the AML parser.
Please have a look at this diff, test it thoroughly and comment/okay it.
Index: dev/acpi/amltypes.h
===
RC
13 matches
Mail list logo
