> gcc is perfectly correct, if you don't want padding space then your
> bitfields have to add up to the size of an integer.
Figured that out by now :-)
I thought it left paddings between my flags, but actually there are 12 unused
bits at the end, and one uninitialized, because unused, but still h
Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It had a level of indirection mistake, but yes, the
>> following patch fixes the new warnings:
> I think it's gcc's fault, or the code relying on something that the C spec
> doesn't guarantee. It seems to me that gcc doesn't pack the bitfields
> prope
> It had a level of indirection mistake, but yes, the
> following patch fixes the new warnings:
I think it's gcc's fault, or the code relying on something that the C spec
doesn't guarantee. It seems to me that gcc doesn't pack the bitfields
properly as we hoped, and leaves padding bytes in between
Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does the attached patch fix the warnings?
It had a level of indirection mistake, but yes, the
following patch fixes the new warnings:
diff --git a/dlls/wined3d/utils.c b/dlls/wined3d/utils.c
index a9fc780..6e1e0ac 100644
--- a/dlls/wined3d/utils.c
+++
Does the attached patch fix the warnings?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dan Kegel
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:22 PM
> To: wine-devel
> Cc: Stefan Dösinger
> Subject: New valgrind warnings in wined3d
Hi Stefan,
your recent round of changes (circa
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-cvs/2008-July/045946.html)
seems to have triggered a whole bunch of valgrind warnings, e.g.
http://kegel.com/wine/valgrind/logs/2008-07-31-07.46/vg-d3d9_visual-diff.txt
+ Use of uninitialised value of size 4
+a
