lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for August 7 (SGI UV)
(This may happen in mainline, but I haven't checked there.)

sparse complains about bitfields not being marked as signed or unsigned
and about one-bit bitfields being (default) signed (sign bit only!):

CHECK /local/linsrc/linux-next-20080807/arch/x86/kernel/tlb_64.c
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:141:22: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:143:25: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:145:15: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:148:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:151:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:154:18: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:156:18: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:160:14: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:164:18: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:178:19: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:186:16: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:190:18: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
include2/asm/uv/uv_bau.h:193:16: error: dubious one-bit signed bitfield
CC arch/x86/kernel/tlb_64.o


Can those struct bitfields be marked as signed or unsigned, please?

Thanks.

---
~Randy
Linux Plumbers Conference, 17-19 September 2008, Portland, Oregon USA
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-08 00:13    [W:0.035 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site