From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45748)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mjt@tls.msk.ru>) id 1YSO9D-0004iv-EE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 06:04:28 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mjt@tls.msk.ru>) id 1YSO99-000899-D1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 06:04:27 -0500
Message-ID: <54F443AE.2000708@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:04:14 +0300
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1425215915-26043-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de>
In-Reply-To: <1425215915-26043-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] disas/microblaze: Fix warnings caused by
 missing 'static' attribute
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>, QEMU Trivial <qemu-trivial@nongnu.org>
Cc: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, QEMU Developer <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

01.03.2015 16:18, Stefan Weil wrote:
> Warnings from the Sparse static analysis tool:
[...]
> @@ -738,7 +737,9 @@ get_field_special (long instr, struct op_code_struct * op)
>     default :
>       {
>         if ( ((((instr & IMM_MASK) >> IMM_LOW) ^ op->immval_mask) & 0xE000) == REG_PVR_MASK) {
> -	 sprintf(tmpstr, "%spvr%d", register_prefix, (unsigned short)(((instr & IMM_MASK) >> IMM_LOW) ^ op->immval_mask) ^ REG_PVR_MASK);
> +	  sprintf(tmpstr, "%s%u", pvr_register_prefix,
> +                 (unsigned short)(((instr & IMM_MASK) >> IMM_LOW) ^
> +                                  op->immval_mask) ^ REG_PVR_MASK);

Is this word wrapping intentionally put into this patch or
was it supposed to be a separate patch?

Thanks,

/mjt