Eric: Would you please take a look at the second one. It's a real bug. You removed the 2 lines that setup tvlast on Oct 8. Were you trying to move them out of the "time-critical path"? (and forgot to put them back in)
I haven't investigated the others. [ 6/121] Compiling libisc/netaddr.c ../../libisc/netaddr.c:145:3: warning: variable 'i' is incremented both in the loop header and in the loop body [-Wfor-loop-analysis] i++; ^ ../../libisc/netaddr.c:142:22: note: incremented here for (; i < ipbytes; i++) { ^ 1 warning generated. ---------- [ 62/121] Compiling libntp/systime.c ../../libntp/systime.c:451:37: warning: variable 'tvlast' is uninitialized when used here [-Wuninitialized] tvdiff = abs_tval(sub_tval(timetv, tvlast)); ^~~~~~ ../../libntp/systime.c:351:2: note: variable 'tvlast' is declared here struct timeval timetv, tvlast, tvdiff; ^ 1 warning generated. ---------- [151/186] Compiling tests/libntp/sfptostr.c ../../tests/libntp/sfptostr.c:31:19: warning: shifting a negative signed value is undefined [-Wshift-negative-value] s_fp test = -200 << 16; // exact -200.000000 ~~~~ ^ ../../tests/libntp/sfptostr.c:45:20: warning: shifting a negative signed value is undefined [-Wshift-negative-value] s_fp test = (-200 << 16) - (1 << 15); // -200 - 0.5 ~~~~ ^ ../../tests/libntp/sfptostr.c:59:20: warning: shifting a negative signed value is undefined [-Wshift-negative-value] s_fp test = (-200 << 16) + (1 << 14)*3; // -200 + 0.75 ~~~~ ^ 3 warnings generated. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel