Actions
Bug #6361
closed
NULL pointer constant issues with timerfd
Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Start date:
2015-10-19
Due date:
% Done:
0%
Estimated time:
Difficulty:
Medium
Tags:
needs-triage
Gerrit CR:
Description
sigh, please see attached patch that fixes the following with an appropriate NULL definition:
==== Build errors (DEBUG) ==== ../../common/io/timerfd.c:125: error: return makes integer from pointer without a cast ../../common/io/timerfd.c:334: error: comparison between pointer and integer ../../common/io/timerfd.c:376: error: comparison between pointer and integer ../../common/io/timerfd.c:458: error: passing argument 6 of 'ddi_create_minor_no de' makes integer from pointer without a cast dmake: Warning: Command failed for target `debug64/timerfd.o' dmake: Warning: Target `install.targ' not remade because of errors The following command caused the error: ../../common/io/timerfd.c:125: error: return makes integer from pointer without a cast ../../common/io/timerfd.c:334: error: comparison between pointer and integer ../../common/io/timerfd.c:376: error: comparison between pointer and integer ../../common/io/timerfd.c:458: error: passing argument 6 of 'ddi_create_minor_no de' makes integer from pointer without a cast dmake: Warning: Command failed for target `debug32/timerfd.o' dmake: Warning: Target `install.targ' not remade because of errors The following command caused the error: dmake: Warning: Target `install' not remade because of errors dmake: Warning: Command failed for target `timerfd' dmake: Warning: Target `install' not remade because of errors dmake: Warning: Command failed for target `intel' dmake: Warning: Target `install' not remade because of errors dmake: Warning: Command failed for target `uts' dmake: Warning: Target `_msg' not remade because of errors
Files
Updated by Gary Mills over 6 years ago
In the two lines with a comparison, you could also use:
if (st.tfd_settime_ovalue != 0)
because tfd_settime_ovalue is type uint64_t, an integer type.
Updated by Richard PALO over 6 years ago
Gary Mills wrote:
In the two lines with a comparison, you could also use:
[...]
because tfd_settime_ovalue is type uint64_t, an integer type.
Yes, but they are clearly defined as pointer types:
49typedef struct timerfd_settime {
50 uint64_t tfd_settime_flags; /* flags (e.g., TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME) */
51 uint64_t tfd_settime_value; /* pointer to value */
52 uint64_t tfd_settime_ovalue; /* pointer to old value, if any */
53} timerfd_settime_t;
keeping in mind 7.18.1.4 (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf), naturally
take a look at timerfd_settime (which sort of overdoes it, though)
Updated by Robert Mustacchi over 1 year ago
- Status changed from New to Closed
All the outstanding NULL pointer vs int issues have been cleaned up for x86 and SPARC as of #12661.
Actions