On 29/8/22 5:07 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 19/08/2022 22:46, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> Module: rtems >> Branch: master >> Commit: 5b875915152a248079855bcb98e871f70ac314cc >> Changeset: >> http://git.rtems.org/rtems/commit/?id=5b875915152a248079855bcb98e871f70ac314cc >> >> Author: Ryan Long <ryan.l...@oarcorp.com> >> Date: Tue Aug 16 12:00:26 2022 -0500 >> >> schedulerpriority.h: Fix gcc 12 warning >> >> Changed the size of the array to 1 to get rid of the warning. >> >> Updates #4662 >> >> --- >> >> cpukit/include/rtems/score/schedulerpriority.h | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/cpukit/include/rtems/score/schedulerpriority.h >> b/cpukit/include/rtems/score/schedulerpriority.h >> index cf5d0762a9..e485e97c60 100644 >> --- a/cpukit/include/rtems/score/schedulerpriority.h >> +++ b/cpukit/include/rtems/score/schedulerpriority.h >> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ typedef struct { >> /** >> * @brief One ready queue per priority level. >> */ >> - Chain_Control Ready[ 0 ]; >> + Chain_Control Ready[ 1 ]; >> } Scheduler_priority_Context; > > Increasing the storage size to fix a warning is the wrong approach. The > warning > should be suppressed in the application configuration header or the > configuration should be changed to account for the new chain control.
Why do you say this is right or a better approach? Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel