Am 02.03.2015 um 12:04 schrieb Michael Tokarev:
> 01.03.2015 16:18, Stefan Weil wrote:
>> Warnings from the Sparse static analysis tool:
> [...]
>> @@ -738,7 +737,9 @@ get_field_special (long instr, struct op_code_struct *
>> op)
>> default :
>> {
>> if ( ((((instr & IMM_MASK) >> IMM_LOW) ^ op->immval_mask) & 0xE000)
>> == REG_PVR_MASK) {
>> - sprintf(tmpstr, "%spvr%d", register_prefix, (unsigned short)(((instr &
>> IMM_MASK) >> IMM_LOW) ^ op->immval_mask) ^ REG_PVR_MASK);
>> + sprintf(tmpstr, "%s%u", pvr_register_prefix,
>> + (unsigned short)(((instr & IMM_MASK) >> IMM_LOW) ^
>> + op->immval_mask) ^ REG_PVR_MASK);
> Is this word wrapping intentionally put into this patch or
> was it supposed to be a separate patch?
>
> Thanks,
>
> /mjt
It's part of the fix ("%spvr%d", register_prefix was replaced by "%s%u",
pvr_register_prefix).
The wrapping was needed to satisfy codecheck.pl.
Stefan
