From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1CTmjF-0000dW-Ek
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:41:33 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33)
	id 1CTmjE-0000dC-LK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:41:32 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CTmjE-0000d1-J7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:41:32 -0500
Received: from [128.112.136.38] (helo=bluebox.CS.Princeton.EDU)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
	(Exim 4.34) id 1CTmZm-0000wP-Do
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:31:46 -0500
Received: from mefworklaptop.cs.princeton.edu
	(mef-work-laptop.CS.Princeton.EDU [128.112.95.45])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by bluebox.CS.Princeton.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	iAFJVhgX007060
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EXP-RC4-MD5 bits=40 verify=NOT)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:31:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "Marc E. Fiuczynski" <mef@CS.Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:31:44 -0500
Message-ID: <NIBBJLJFDHPDIBEEKKLPEEMGCLAA.mef@cs.princeton.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <4197CA1C.1010903@bellard.org>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] PATCH for QEMU 0.6.1 hw/openpic.c typo bug
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Hello,

The hw/openpic.c code may have a typo error where a constant appears to have
an extra zero in it. I.e., it is
0x800000000 but should be
0x80000000.

This is something that gcc flags as a warning.  Considering the number of
other warning messages that gcc produces, I suspect that you guys have
simply overlooked this one. Below is a diff snippet that you can feed to
patch, though, I suppose it will be easier to edit it by hand.

Cheers,
Marc



*** hw/openpic.c        12 Nov 2004 19:42:16 -0000      1.1.1.1
--- hw/openpic.c        12 Nov 2004 21:05:24 -0000      1.2
***************
*** 629,635 ****
          break;
      case 0x10: /* TIBC */
        if ((opp->timers[idx].ticc & 0x80000000) != 0 &&
!           (val & 0x800000000) == 0 &&
              (opp->timers[idx].tibc & 0x80000000) != 0)
            opp->timers[idx].ticc &= ~0x80000000;
        opp->timers[idx].tibc = val;
--- 629,635 ----
          break;
      case 0x10: /* TIBC */
        if ((opp->timers[idx].ticc & 0x80000000) != 0 &&
!           (val & 0x80000000) == 0 &&
              (opp->timers[idx].tibc & 0x80000000) != 0)
            opp->timers[idx].ticc &= ~0x80000000;
        opp->timers[idx].tibc = val;