You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by ranier <ra...@cultura.com.br> on 2003/07/09 01:09:06 UTC
[PACTH] sdbm.c, silent warning messages on gcc 2.95.3 with debug
Re: [PACTH] sdbm.c, silent warning messages on gcc 2.95.3 with debug
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> ranier wrote:
>
>> --- sdbm-old.c 2003-07-08 19:55:04.000000000 -0300
>> +++ sdbm.c 2003-07-08 19:57:52.000000000 -0300
>> @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@
>> while (dbit < db->maxbno && getdbit(db, dbit))
>> dbit = 2 * dbit + ((hash & (1 << hbit++)) ? 2 : 1);
>>
>> - debug(("dbit: %d...", dbit));
>> + debug(("dbit: %lu...", dbit));
>
>
> shouldn't your changes use %ld instead of %lu? It looks to me that dbit
> and pagb are longs, not unsigned longs.
Surely at least dbit should be unsigned?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
Re: [PACTH] sdbm.c, silent warning messages on gcc 2.95.3 with debug
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
ranier wrote:
> --- sdbm-old.c 2003-07-08 19:55:04.000000000 -0300
> +++ sdbm.c 2003-07-08 19:57:52.000000000 -0300
> @@ -495,7 +495,7 @@
> while (dbit < db->maxbno && getdbit(db, dbit))
> dbit = 2 * dbit + ((hash & (1 << hbit++)) ? 2 : 1);
>
> - debug(("dbit: %d...", dbit));
> + debug(("dbit: %lu...", dbit));
shouldn't your changes use %ld instead of %lu? It looks to me that dbit and
pagb are longs, not unsigned longs.