Myles Watson wrote:
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com mailto:mylesgw@gmail.com>
Thanks, Myles
I wouldn't move those, ... they're never ever going to be called by anyone. (explicitly)
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.dewrote:
Myles Watson wrote:
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com <mailto:mylesgw@gmail.com
Thanks, Myles
I wouldn't move those, ... they're never ever going to be called by anyone. (explicitly)
How about this, then. Either way silences these warnings:
src/lib/gcc.c:30: warning: no previous prototype for '__wrap___divdi3' src/lib/gcc.c:31: warning: no previous prototype for '__wrap___udivdi3' src/lib/gcc.c:32: warning: no previous prototype for '__wrap___moddi3' src/lib/gcc.c:33: warning: no previous prototype for '__wrap___umoddi3'
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson mylesgw@gmail.com
Thanks, Myles
Myles Watson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Stefan Reinauer <stepan@coresystems.de mailto:stepan@coresystems.de> wrote:
Myles Watson wrote: > Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com <mailto:mylesgw@gmail.com> <mailto:mylesgw@gmail.com <mailto:mylesgw@gmail.com>>> > > Thanks, > Myles I wouldn't move those, ... they're never ever going to be called by anyone. (explicitly)How about this, then. Either way silences these warnings:
src/lib/gcc.c:30: warning: no previous prototype for '__wrap___divdi3' src/lib/gcc.c:31: warning: no previous prototype for '__wrap___udivdi3' src/lib/gcc.c:32: warning: no previous prototype for '__wrap___moddi3' src/lib/gcc.c:33: warning: no previous prototype for '__wrap___umoddi3'
Ah! Ok, you're of course right.
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com mailto:mylesgw@gmail.com>
As opposed to our previous discussion, I think in this case your second patch is nicer in this case, as these functions must never be called directly but only through our gcc workaround wrapper.
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de
Stefan
Signed-off-by: Myles Watson <mylesgw@gmail.com <mailto:mylesgw@gmail.com
As opposed to our previous discussion, I think in this case your second patch is nicer in this case, as these functions must never be called directly but only through our gcc workaround wrapper.
I agree.
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de
Rev 4888.
Thanks, Myles
-
Myles Watson -
Stefan Reinauer