Xen devel - Dec 2006 - [PATCH] two missing bits (was Re: Add -Wcast-qual flag)

Hi!

I catched two pieces with debug and crash_debug enabled.
One of them fixes a build error even without the -Wcast-qual flag.

Patch attached.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

I object to the change to variable_test_bit() - why is that needed? I had
specifically
submitted a patch to get the const qualifier added there. Jan
>>> "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>
22.12.06 10:05 >>>
Hi!

I catched two pieces with debug and crash_debug enabled.
One of them fixes a build error even without the -Wcast-qual flag.

Patch attached.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Maybe we need a CONST_ADDR macro, as I suspect the problem is the cast
hidden inside the ADDR macro is dropping the const qualifier.

 -- Keir

On 22/12/06 9:31 am, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> I object to the change to variable_test_bit() - why is that needed? I had
> specifically
> submitted a patch to get the const qualifier added there. Jan
> 
>>>> "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>
22.12.06 10:05 >>>
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I catched two pieces with debug and crash_debug enabled.
> One of them fixes a build error even without the -Wcast-qual flag.
> 
> Patch attached.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Friday 22 December 2006 10:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> I object to the change to variable_test_bit() - why is that needed? I had
> specifically submitted a patch to get the const qualifier added there. Jan
The ADDR macro discards the const again.
I attached an alternative patch.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

If this was with -Wconst-qual, yes. But didn''t we agree that at least
for now we''ll
not add that warning (and hence we also don''t absolutely have to change
code
only affected by it)? Jan
>>> Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> 22.12.06 10:40
>>>
Maybe we need a CONST_ADDR macro, as I suspect the problem is the cast
hidden inside the ADDR macro is dropping the const qualifier.

 -- Keir

On 22/12/06 9:31 am, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> I object to the change to variable_test_bit() - why is that needed? I had
> specifically
> submitted a patch to get the const qualifier added there. Jan
> 
>>>> "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>
22.12.06 10:05 >>>
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I catched two pieces with debug and crash_debug enabled.
> One of them fixes a build error even without the -Wcast-qual flag.
> 
> Patch attached.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com 
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Friday 22 December 2006 10:40, Keir Fraser wrote:
> Maybe we need a CONST_ADDR macro, as I suspect the problem is the cast
> hidden inside the ADDR macro is dropping the const qualifier.
That''s right. Yet another alternative patch, this time with the
CONST_ADDR
macro.

>  -- Keir
>
> On 22/12/06 9:31 am, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
wrote:
> > I object to the change to variable_test_bit() - why is that needed? I
had
> > specifically
> > submitted a patch to get the const qualifier added there. Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Friday 22 December 2006 10:51, Jan Beulich wrote:
> If this was with -Wconst-qual, yes. But didn''t we agree that at
least for
> now we''ll not add that warning (and hence we also don''t
absolutely have to
> change code only affected by it)? Jan
So far I understood, we agreed to not add the flag and not to add
the __UNCONST() hack.




_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel