[PATCH 1/4] main_cp.c: Unused value (CID #1255344)

[Ryan Long]

Joel says the two are equivalent.

-----Original Message-----
From: devel <devel-bounces at rtems.org> On Behalf Of Ryan Long
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 3:36 PM
To: Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org>
Cc: devel at rtems.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] main_cp.c: Unused value (CID #1255344)

Oh, I definitely missed that. I'm not sure though, but other patches have used #ifdef.  So I should only resubmit this patch then?

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 3:29 PM
To: Ryan Long <ryan.long at oarcorp.com>
Cc: devel at rtems.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] main_cp.c: Unused value (CID #1255344)


> On 6 Apr 2021, at 5:38 am, Ryan Long <ryan.long at oarcorp.com> wrote:
> 
> CID 1255344: Unused value in copy().
> 
> Closes #4339
> ---
> cpukit/libmisc/shell/main_cp.c | 64 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/cpukit/libmisc/shell/main_cp.c 
> b/cpukit/libmisc/shell/main_cp.c index cddbc95..2984a50 100644
> --- a/cpukit/libmisc/shell/main_cp.c
> +++ b/cpukit/libmisc/shell/main_cp.c
> @@ -310,11 +310,31 @@ copy(rtems_shell_cp_globals* cp_globals,
>        case FTS_ERR:
>            warnx("%s: %s",
>                curr->fts_path, strerror(curr->fts_errno));
> +        #if __rtems__

Is this ok or should it be #ifdef?

Chris
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel at rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel