Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

> "Alan" == Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Alan> unsigned is always explicitly integer. >> And recent gcc's complain over it. Alan> So file a gcc bug ? Hmmm and it doesn't seem to moan over it anymore, highly embarrassing ;-( Sorry Aris. I remember Andreas changed some of these in I

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

> "Alan" == Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Alan> unsigned is always explicitly integer. >> And recent gcc's complain over it. Alan> So file a gcc bug ? Ok, I got it now - I confused 'unsigned foo' with 'static foo' the latter being moaned about. Sorry about the confusion. Jes - To

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > > Alan> unsigned is always explicitly integer. > > And recent gcc's complain over it. > > So file a gcc bug ? AFAIK C99 spec requires full type description ("unsigned int"), gcc just follows the spec. Zbigniew Chyla - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

> Alan> unsigned is always explicitly integer. > And recent gcc's complain over it. So file a gcc bug ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

> "Alan" == Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: aris> + unsigned xmt_lower_limit_reg; + unsigned xmt_upper_limit_reg; aris> + unsigned eeprom_reg; }; >> Please don't use unsigned without specifying the size, use either >> unsigned int or unsigned long. Alan> unsigned is always explicitly

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

> aris> + unsigned xmt_lower_limit_reg; > aris> + unsigned xmt_upper_limit_reg; > aris> + unsigned eeprom_reg; > aris> }; > > Please don't use unsigned without specifying the size, use either > unsigned int or unsigned long. unsigned is always explicitly integer.

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

[Jes Sørensen] > Please don't use unsigned without specifying the size, use either > unsigned int or unsigned long. This is just a stylistic issue, right? I believe 'unsigned' is short (no pun intended) for 'unsigned int', just as 'long' is short for 'long int'. I find both forms about

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

hi, done, thanks Jes! On 26 Sep 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > "aris" == aris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > aris> hi, misc fixes on eepro driver, please apply > > aris> @@ -212,6 +214,12 @@ > aris>version of the 82595 chip. */ > aris>

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

> "aris" == aris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: aris> hi, misc fixes on eepro driver, please apply aris> @@ -212,6 +214,12 @@ aris> version of the 82595 chip. */ aris> int stepping; aris> spinlock_t lock; /* Serializing lock */ aris> +

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

"aris" == aris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: aris hi, misc fixes on eepro driver, please apply aris @@ -212,6 +214,12 @@ aris version of the 82595 chip. */ aris int stepping; aris spinlock_t lock; /* Serializing lock */ aris + unsigned rcv_ram;

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

hi, done, thanks Jes! On 26 Sep 2000, Jes Sorensen wrote: "aris" == aris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: aris hi, misc fixes on eepro driver, please apply aris @@ -212,6 +214,12 @@ arisversion of the 82595 chip. */ aris int

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

[Jes Sørensen] Please don't use unsigned without specifying the size, use either unsigned int or unsigned long. This is just a stylistic issue, right? I believe 'unsigned' is short (no pun intended) for 'unsigned int', just as 'long' is short for 'long int'. I find both forms about equally

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

aris + unsigned xmt_lower_limit_reg; aris + unsigned xmt_upper_limit_reg; aris + unsigned eeprom_reg; aris }; Please don't use unsigned without specifying the size, use either unsigned int or unsigned long. unsigned is always explicitly integer. - To

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

"Alan" == Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: aris + unsigned xmt_lower_limit_reg; + unsigned xmt_upper_limit_reg; aris + unsigned eeprom_reg; }; Please don't use unsigned without specifying the size, use either unsigned int or unsigned long. Alan unsigned is always explicitly integer. And

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

Alan unsigned is always explicitly integer. And recent gcc's complain over it. So file a gcc bug ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote: Alan unsigned is always explicitly integer. And recent gcc's complain over it. So file a gcc bug ? AFAIK C99 spec requires full type description ("unsigned int"), gcc just follows the spec. Zbigniew Chyla - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

"Alan" == Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alan unsigned is always explicitly integer. And recent gcc's complain over it. Alan So file a gcc bug ? Ok, I got it now - I confused 'unsigned foo' with 'static foo' the latter being moaned about. Sorry about the confusion. Jes - To unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH] eepro 0.12c

"Alan" == Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alan unsigned is always explicitly integer. And recent gcc's complain over it. Alan So file a gcc bug ? Hmmm and it doesn't seem to moan over it anymore, highly embarrassing ;-( Sorry Aris. I remember Andreas changed some of these in I think the