code review 8182043: cmd/gc, cmd/ld: fix warnings on Plan 9

cmd/gc, cmd/ld: fix warnings on Plan 9

src/cmd/gc/closure.c:133 param declared and not used: nowrap
src/cmd/gc/const.c:1139 set and not used: t1
src/cmd/ld/data.c:652 format mismatch #llx INT, arg 7
src/cmd/ld/data.c:652 format mismatch #llx INT, arg 8
src/cmd/ld/data.c:1230 set and not used: datsize

[0intro, 2013-03-29 23:04:55]

Hello golang-dev (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://code.google.com/p/go

[dave_cheney.net, 2013-03-30 00:44:18]

I'd like to ask Remy to take a look at this one.

[remyoudompheng, 2013-03-30 08:44:08]

LGTM

What compiler produced the errors?

[0intro, 2013-03-30 10:00:14]

> What compiler produced the errors?

The Plan 9 compiler produced these warnings:

src/cmd/gc/closure.c:133 param declared and not used: nowrap
src/cmd/gc/const.c:1139 set and not used: t1
src/cmd/ld/data.c:1230 set and not used: datsize

[lucio, 2013-03-30 12:54:05]

It also picked up two format mismatches in ld/data.c:652 (#llx/INT,
args 7 and 8).  May as well fix them at the same time (I haven't
checked them, I'm caught up with other developments).


On 3/30/13, 0intro@gmail.com <0intro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What compiler produced the errors?
>
> The Plan 9 compiler produced these warnings:
>
> src/cmd/gc/closure.c:133 param declared and not used: nowrap
> src/cmd/gc/const.c:1139 set and not used: t1
> src/cmd/ld/data.c:1230 set and not used: datsize
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/8182043/
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

[0intro, 2013-03-30 13:13:19]

> It also picked up two format mismatches in ld/data.c:652 (#llx/INT,
> args 7 and 8).  May as well fix them at the same time (I haven't
> checked them, I'm caught up with other developments).

Done.

[0intro, 2013-03-30 13:14:18]

Hello dave@cheney.net, golang-dev, golang-dev@googlegroups.com,
lucio.dere@gmail.com, remyoudompheng@gmail.com (cc:
golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

Please take another look.

[lucio, 2013-03-30 13:44:43]

I guess I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth here, but should you not
have changed the formats, rather?  One would keep the format if it's
consistent with other formats, but the conversion and more complex
treatment of vlongs seems to me to recommend going for a %d.

Lucio.

On 3/30/13, 0intro@gmail.com <0intro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It also picked up two format mismatches in ld/data.c:652 (#llx/INT,
>> args 7 and 8).  May as well fix them at the same time (I haven't
>> checked them, I'm caught up with other developments).
>
> Done.
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/8182043/
>

[0intro, 2013-03-30 13:50:32]

> I guess I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth here, but should you not
> have changed the formats, rather?  One would keep the format if it's
> consistent with other formats, but the conversion and more complex
> treatment of vlongs seems to me to recommend going for a %d.

These variables are either int32 or vlong, depending the compiler used. See
src/cmd/?l/l.h.

[lucio, 2013-03-30 14:22:43]

I do apologise, I wasn't expecting that.

Lucio.


On 3/30/13, 0intro@gmail.com <0intro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth here, but should you not
>> have changed the formats, rather?  One would keep the format if it's
>> consistent with other formats, but the conversion and more complex
>> treatment of vlongs seems to me to recommend going for a %d.
>
> These variables are either int32 or vlong, depending the compiler used.
> See src/cmd/?l/l.h.
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/8182043/
>

[bradfitz, 2013-03-30 16:44:42]

LGTM

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:50 AM, <0intro@gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth here, but should you not
>> have changed the formats, rather?  One would keep the format if it's
>> consistent with other formats, but the conversion and more complex
>> treatment of vlongs seems to me to recommend going for a %d.
>>
>
> These variables are either int32 or vlong, depending the compiler used.
> See src/cmd/?l/l.h.
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.**com/8182043/<https://codereview.appspot.com/8182...
>
> --
>
> ---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "golang-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
golang-dev+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<golang-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegrou...
> .
> For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/o...
> .
>
>
>

[bradfitz, 2013-03-30 16:44:55]

*** Submitted as https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=b033e458647e ***

cmd/gc, cmd/ld: fix warnings on Plan 9

src/cmd/gc/closure.c:133 param declared and not used: nowrap
src/cmd/gc/const.c:1139 set and not used: t1
src/cmd/ld/data.c:652 format mismatch #llx INT, arg 7
src/cmd/ld/data.c:652 format mismatch #llx INT, arg 8
src/cmd/ld/data.c:1230 set and not used: datsize

R=dave, golang-dev, lucio.dere, remyoudompheng, bradfitz
CC=golang-dev
https://codereview.appspot.com/8182043

Committer: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>