On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:29:06 +0200
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
>
> In message <20110425162854.05500...@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree. "printf(foo);" may be suboptimal but there are cases
> > > where I do not want to see a warning about this. Consider f
Dear Scott Wood,
In message <20110425162854.05500...@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>
> > I disagree. "printf(foo);" may be suboptimal but there are cases
> > where I do not want to see a warning about this. Consider for example
> > common/main.c:
> >
> > 115 # ifdef CONFIG_AUTOBOOT_P
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:23:41 +0200
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
>
> In message <20110425144518.5a37b...@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
> >
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> ...
> > > that wasnt what i was saying. my point is simply that changing
> > > printf(foo); to printf("%s"
Dear Scott Wood,
In message <20110425144518.5a37b...@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
>
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
...
> > that wasnt what i was saying. my point is simply that changing
> > printf(foo); to printf("%s", foo); simply to satisfy a gcc warning is
> > wrong and unnecessarily blo
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 15:45, Scott Wood wrote:
> And after writing this, you sent a patch changing the warning options...
i sent a proper patch to do a suggestion i already made here. and it
isnt really changing anything ... most toolchains already have this
behavior by default. my patch only
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:53:50 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 13:45, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Why encourage bad habits? Are there any instances of this in U-Boot where
> > conversion to puts() wouldn't be an improvement, especially given the lack
> > of an automatic newline in
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 13:58, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 19:53:50:
>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 13:45, Scott Wood wrote:
>> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:13:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> >> > vapi
vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 19:53:50:
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 13:45, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:13:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> > vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31:
> >> >> pr
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 13:45, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:13:20 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> > vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31:
>> >> probably want to disable this stuff for u-boot since it doesnt make
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:13:20 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31:
> >> probably want to disable this stuff for u-boot since it doesnt make
> >> much sense by adding -Wno-format-nonliteral an
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 04:30, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 06:13:20:
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> > Yes, but puts() adds an newline so you can't just replace the above printf
>> > with puts()
>>
>> no, it doesnt. u-boot's p
vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 07:40:00:
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > however, that doesnt change my original point ... we shouldnt be
> > "fixing" things like this that have no relevance in the u-boot world.
> > disable the warning flags in the build
vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 06:13:20:
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31:
> >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> >> --- a/examples/standalone/time
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> however, that doesnt change my original point ... we shouldnt be
> "fixing" things like this that have no relevance in the u-boot world.
> disable the warning flags in the build system.
see if this fixes your printf warnings:
--- a/config.m
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31:
>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> >> --- a/examples/standalone/timer.c
>> >> +++ b/examples/standalone/timer.c
>> >> @@ -186,7 +186,
vapierfil...@gmail.com wrote on 2011/04/25 00:38:31:
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> --- a/examples/standalone/timer.c
> >> +++ b/examples/standalone/timer.c
> >> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ int timer (int argc, char * const argv[])
> >> /* c
Wolfgang Denk wrote on 2011/04/25 00:14:58:
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message <1303633774-22961-3-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>
> you wrote:
> > Noticed while building all of mpc8xx
>
> Please include in the commit message what the compiler warnings were,
> and which com
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> --- a/examples/standalone/timer.c
>> +++ b/examples/standalone/timer.c
>> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ int timer (int argc, char * const argv[])
>> /* clear all events */
>> *hwp->terp = (CPMT_EVENT_CAP | CPMT_EVE
Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message <1303633774-22961-3-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>
you wrote:
> Noticed while building all of mpc8xx
Please include in the commit message what the compiler warnings were,
and which compiler version was used to produce these warnings.
> diff --gi
19 matches
Mail list logo
