On (10/04/14 12:11), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 11:11 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:34:10AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 21:19 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:27:28PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 18:13 +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:22:04PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I noticed these two warnings in clang.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be great if the 2nd patch could be checked by Sumit
to make
> > > > > > sure that the return value wasn't ignored on purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > > yes, I would prefer to ignore errors here. There might be various
cases
> > > > > were we are not able to resolve a single SID but still can
proceed with
> > > > > the others.
> > > >
> > > > Please see attached patch. Feel free to NACK it, if you think it's
more
> > > > pain than gain.
> > >
> > > Why not do something useful to avoid the compiler warning and print a
> > > SSSDBG_TRACE_ALL debug message with the returned error code in the case
> > > of an error?
> >
> > Hello Sumit,
> >
> > I just took your previous response too literally - "I would prefer to
> > ignore errors here" - my bad. (Hopefully final) patch attached.
>
> Thank you. ACK
>
> I wonder if the explicit (unsigned int) casts are needed to avoid
> warnings or if you are just calling them to be on the safe side?
Honestly, I just copy&past them. When I removed them I didn't notice any
If
you copy&past this code then explicit casting is in two places.
In future, it can in 3, 4, 5 ...
relevant clang or gcc warnings. I asked Jakub and he advised me that
I
could have used formatting macros PRIu16 and PRIu32.
I would suggest to leave patch as is for now.
Is it a problem to send another patch?
LS