Summary: osaf: Fix compilation errors when building with GCC 4.9.0 [#883] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 883 Peer Reviewer(s): Ramesh Pull request to: Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.3.x, opensaf-4.4.x, default(4.5) Development branch: default
-------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services y OpenSAF services y Core libraries y Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset e65959953618e7e129008d5b692e2209d2da63a7 Author: Anders Widell <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 14:52:38 +0200 osaf: Fix compilation errors when building with GCC 4.9.0 [#883] OpenSAF did not build successfully with GCC 4.9.0, due to a new warning: In file included from ncs_sprr.c:37:0: ncs_sprr.c: In function 'ncs_splr_api': ../../../../osaf/libs/core/include/ncssysf_def.h:105:54: error: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect [-Werror=unused- value] #define m_LEAP_DBG_SINK(r) (TRACE("IN LEAP_DBG_SINK"), r) ^ ncs_sprr.c:46:58: note: in expansion of macro 'm_LEAP_DBG_SINK' #define m_NCS_SPRR_DBG_SINK(x,y) printf("SPRR:%s\n", y),m_LEAP_DBG_SINK(x) ^ ncs_sprr.c:237:9: note: in expansion of macro 'm_NCS_SPRR_DBG_SINK' rc = m_NCS_SPRR_DBG_SINK(NCSCC_RC_DUPLICATE_ENTRY, "SPLR duplication attempted"); The warning actually pointed out a rather tricky bug in ncs_sprr.c, that is not obvious the first time you look at the code. The bug is that the comma operator is used within a C preprocessor macro, without surrounding parentheses. When this macro is used in an assignment statement, the code does not do what you would expect, since the comma operator has lower precedence than the assignment operator in the C language. By adding parentheses around the macro definition, this bug is solved. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/libs/core/common/ncs_main_pub.c | 2 +- osaf/libs/core/common/ncs_sprr.c | 2 +- osaf/libs/core/include/ncssysf_def.h | 4 ++-- osaf/libs/core/leap/hj_dec.c | 4 ++-- osaf/libs/core/leap/hj_enc.c | 8 ++++---- osaf/libs/core/leap/hj_hdl.c | 18 +++++++++--------- osaf/libs/core/leap/hj_ubaid.c | 6 +++--- osaf/libs/core/leap/sysf_ipc.c | 6 +++--- osaf/libs/core/leap/sysf_mem.c | 4 ++-- osaf/libs/core/leap/sysf_tmr.c | 2 +- osaf/services/infrastructure/fm/fms/fm_mds.c | 2 +- osaf/services/saf/clmsv/clms/clms_mbcsv.c | 2 +- osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpd/cpd_amf.c | 4 ++-- osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpd/cpd_mds.c | 2 +- osaf/services/saf/glsv/gld/gld_evt.c | 2 +- osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_mbcsv.c | 2 +- osaf/services/saf/ntfsv/ntfs/ntfs_mbcsv.c | 2 +- 17 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Build OpenSAF with GCC 4.9.0 and start it. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- OpenSAF should build successfully with GCC 4.9.0 and start successfully. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Ramesh Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y powerpc n n powerpc64 n n Reviewer Checklist: ------------------- [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries that need proper data filled in. ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is too much content into a single commit. ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication of what has changed between each re-send. ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the the threaded patch review. ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results for in-service upgradability test. ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
