Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix #509, Remove uintmax_t usage #510

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 17, 2020

Conversation

jphickey
Copy link
Contributor

Describe the contribution
Some systems may not provide this type. Using unsigned long instead should be sufficient.

Fixes #509

Testing performed
Build on vxworks
Run all unit tests on native system and on RTEMS.

Expected behavior changes
No impact to behavior

System(s) tested on
Ubuntu 20.04
GSFC VxWorks lab build machine (gs582w-cfelnx)

Contributor Info - All information REQUIRED for consideration of pull request
Joseph Hickey, Vantage Systems, Inc.

Some systems may not provide this type.  Using "unsigned long" instead
should be sufficient.
@jphickey jphickey added the CCB:Ready Pull request is ready for discussion at the Configuration Control Board (CCB) label Jun 16, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@skliper skliper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

long long? Is an address ever returned (I'd think it could be).

@jphickey
Copy link
Contributor Author

long long? Is an address ever returned (I'd think it could be).

It's in a union with a void* and double, so its got pointers and floating points covered already. And AFAIK long long was also added around the same time as uintmax_t.

(FWIW even an old gcc 4.3.3 should definitely provide this type, I didn't dig into it much to see if there was perhaps some other reason it failed, but the regular unsigned long should be good enough so I left it at that)

@astrogeco
Copy link
Contributor

CCB 2020-06-17: APPROVED

@astrogeco astrogeco added IC-20200610 and removed CCB:Ready Pull request is ready for discussion at the Configuration Control Board (CCB) labels Jun 17, 2020
@astrogeco astrogeco changed the base branch from master to integration-candidate June 17, 2020 21:12
@astrogeco astrogeco merged commit e561cc7 into nasa:integration-candidate Jun 17, 2020
astrogeco pushed a commit to nasa/cFS that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2020
@astrogeco astrogeco added the CCB:Approved Indicates code review and approval by community CCB label Jun 17, 2020
astrogeco pushed a commit to nasa/cFS that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2020
@jphickey jphickey deleted the fix-509-no-uintmax_t branch June 19, 2020 16:13
@skliper skliper added this to the 5.1.0 milestone Aug 21, 2020
jphickey pushed a commit to jphickey/osal that referenced this pull request Aug 10, 2022
Fix nasa#509,  Executive Services Requirements Scrub
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CCB:Approved Indicates code review and approval by community CCB
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

VxWorks 6.9 does not provide uintmax_t type
3 participants