[PATCH 1/2] flex: Avoid REJECT name conflict.

REJECT is a reserved word in flex and REJECT is also used as %token in bison grammar. Rename REJECT to Reject in bison grammar to avoid name conflict. Same thing for ECHO but that does not seem to cause any conflicts ATM so leave as is. Also delete some dead code in flex output by using the

[PATCH 2/2] proto: kill warnings ../../nest/proto.c: In function `proto_do_show_pipe_stats': ../../nest/proto.c:814: warning: implicit declaration of function `pipe_get_peer_stats' ../../nest/proto.c:

Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- nest/proto.c |2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/nest/proto.c b/nest/proto.c index f55def5..46147a4 100644 --- a/nest/proto.c +++ b/nest/proto.c @@ -807,6 +807,7 @@ proto_do_show_stats(struct

Re: [PATCH 2/2] proto: kill warnings ../../nest/proto.c: In function `proto_do_show_pipe_stats': ../../nest/proto.c:814: warning: implicit declaration of function `pipe_get_peer_stats' ../../nest/prot

On 27.4.2010 11:21, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se Thank you. Added. --- nest/proto.c |2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/nest/proto.c b/nest/proto.c index f55def5..46147a4 100644 ---

Re: [PATCH 0/5] IP checksum improvements

Martin Mares m...@ucw.cz wrote on 2010/04/27 09:47:36: Hello! Huh, what should do endianity have in common with the choice of pre-/postincrement? Because most archs that can deal with preinc. are big endian, the for loop is important too. Decrement and test for zero is basically

Re: [PATCH 1/2] flex: Avoid REJECT name conflict.

Ondrej Filip fe...@network.cz wrote on 2010/04/27 11:34:18: On 27.4.2010 11:21, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: REJECT is a reserved word in flex and REJECT is also used as %token in bison grammar. Rename REJECT to Reject in bison grammar to avoid name conflict. Same thing for ECHO but

Re: CLI ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 26.04.2010 14:26, schrieb Joakim Tjernlund: Not a lot, seems that the CLI only can do very limited configuration or am I missing something here. The only thing I am currently missing is an integrated grep|include and a tab completion for all

Re: Patch ping

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:31:18AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: I missed this patch. Shouldn't autoconf also set linker binary name to some variable (for crosscompiling)? You would think that, but you need libtool for that. It is better not to use LD directly if you can avoid it.

Re: fletcher checksum

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:27:46AM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: I think I mentioned this in passing but the fletcher checksum impl. is fragile. Try changing u16 length to u32 length and watch it break for no apparent reason. Yes, i noticed that and will fix that. Thanks. You know

Re: fletcher checksum

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 04:39:37PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: I think I mentioned this in passing but the fletcher checksum impl. is fragile. Try changing u16 length to u32 length and watch it break for no apparent reason. Yes, i noticed that and will fix that. Thanks. You know

Re: Patch ping

Hello! This is no issue, we already require GCC. If so, then ACK from me. (BTW where we rely on GCC?) Have a nice fortnight -- Martin `MJ' Mares m...@ucw.cz http://mj.ucw.cz/ Faculty of Math and Physics, Charles University, Prague,

[PATCH] flex: Kill warning

This kills: cf-lex.c:1874: warning: 'yy_fatal_error' defined but not used Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se --- conf/cf-lex.l |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/conf/cf-lex.l b/conf/cf-lex.l index 6612d3c..82f4c52 100644 ---

Re: [PATCH] flex: Kill warning

This kills: cf-lex.c:1874: warning: 'yy_fatal_error' defined but not used Sorry, but this is much more ugly than the warning itself. What about declaring yy_fatal_error() with UNUSED? Have a nice fortnight -- Martin `MJ' Mares

Re: [PATCH 1/2] flex: Avoid REJECT name conflict.

Hello! I noticed the compile warning caused by it and looked for the reason. I didn't notice any problem but such conflicts are a bug waiting to happen so I tried to fix it. Again, the fix is uglier than the symptoms of the problem. The best fix would be to prefix all tokens(say TOK_) so

Re: [PATCH 1/2] flex: Avoid REJECT name conflict.

Martin Mares m...@ucw.cz wrote on 2010/04/27 23:34:18: Hello! I noticed the compile warning caused by it and looked for the reason. I didn't notice any problem but such conflicts are a bug waiting to happen so I tried to fix it. Again, the fix is uglier than the symptoms of the problem.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] flex: Avoid REJECT name conflict.

Martin Mares m...@ucw.cz wrote on 2010/04/27 23:47:01: Hello! Again, the fix is uglier than the symptoms of the problem. Picky, you rather stare at that warning and the ugly #undef REJECT plus some potential bug yet to be found? No, I would rather like to commit a proper fix, not an

Re: Patch ping

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:58:39PM +0200, Martin Mares wrote: (BTW where we rely on GCC?) There are several frequent GCCisms in the code, like 'struct abc b = {field: 123}', '? :' or ({ ... }). -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP