ehlo,
Older versions of gcc does not like initialisation of struct sigevent because the first member of structure is union (sigval_t).
Simple patch is attached.
LS
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:28:05AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
Older versions of gcc does not like initialisation of struct sigevent because the first member of structure is union (sigval_t).
Simple patch is attached.
LS
The warning is gone, just waiting for CI to finish ....
bye, Sumit
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:32:57AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:28:05AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
Older versions of gcc does not like initialisation of struct sigevent because the first member of structure is union (sigval_t).
Simple patch is attached.
LS
The warning is gone, just waiting for CI to finish ....
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/47/12/summary.html
the failures are looking unrelated to me, so ACK.
bye, Sumit
bye, Sumit _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
On (01/07/16 10:28), Sumit Bose wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:32:57AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:28:05AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
Older versions of gcc does not like initialisation of struct sigevent because the first member of structure is union (sigval_t).
Simple patch is attached.
LS
The warning is gone, just waiting for CI to finish ....
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/47/12/summary.html
the failures are looking unrelated to me, so ACK.
thank you for fast review
master: * 3e81e71124c75fd8709704e38561fa1f9d5bfbc2
LS
On (01/07/16 10:55), Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (01/07/16 10:28), Sumit Bose wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:32:57AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:28:05AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
ehlo,
Older versions of gcc does not like initialisation of struct sigevent because the first member of structure is union (sigval_t).
Simple patch is attached.
LS
The warning is gone, just waiting for CI to finish ....
http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/47/12/summary.html
the failures are looking unrelated to me, so ACK.
thank you for fast review
master:
- 3e81e71124c75fd8709704e38561fa1f9d5bfbc2
ehm, wrong hash.
master: * 8a1ad2a2cc489c202092af321f4c4a9787802ed6
LS
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org