Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

Hello, an addendum only for the fun of it that is not meant as starting point for a discussion about coding style: On Sep 28 21:07 m. allan noah wrote (excerpt): On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Johannes Meixner wrote: In sane-backends-git20150928 in backend/microtek2.c

Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

Hello, On Sep 28 18:59 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (excerpt): With the sequencing issues, we can only speculate at what the intended behaviour is, so we can't really fix things. That notwithstanding, I think we can make a decent, educated guess at a fix for both cases and make the warning go away

Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

Johannes Meixner writes: > Hello, Hi Johannes, > On Sep 28 18:59 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (excerpt): >> With the sequencing issues, we can only speculate at what >> the intended behaviour is, so we can't really fix things. >> That notwithstanding, I think we can make a decent, educated >> guess at

Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

Olaf Meeuwissen writes: > Johannes Meixner writes: > >> Hello, > > Hi Johannes, > >> On Sep 28 18:59 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (excerpt): >>> With the sequencing issues, we can only speculate at what >>> the intended behaviour is, so we can't really fix things. >>> That notwithstanding, I think we

Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

Johannes Meixner writes: > Hello, > > On Sep 25 21:02 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (excerpt): >> In the >> mean time, I think we should any code that is flagged as -Wunsequenced >> (by clang) or -Wsequence-point (by gcc). > > I assume the meaning is clear but there is an omission. > What exactly should

Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

m. allan noah writes: > I think we are all on the same page here regarding clarity of code, > and our concern over warnings. Long term, it would be great if sane > were warning free- but that would require that code get maintainers, > or get ejected. Given that some scanners we support have not

Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Johannes Meixner wrote: > > Hello, > > On Sep 28 18:59 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (excerpt): >> >> With the sequencing issues, we can only speculate at what >> the intended behaviour is, so we can't really fix things. >> That notwithstanding, I think we

Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

I think we are all on the same page here regarding clarity of code, and our concern over warnings. Long term, it would be great if sane were warning free- but that would require that code get maintainers, or get ejected. Given that some scanners we support have not been made in 20 years, I think

Re: [sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

Hello, On Sep 25 21:02 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (excerpt): I'm just chiming in to make a point to the list in general here. Nothing personal ;-) Perfectly o.k. - and I fully agree with your findings. Many thanks for your real test! In the mean time, I think we should any code that is flagged

[sane-devel] Fixing sequencing issues (was Re: Proposed Upgrade (pu) branches on GitLab)

Hi Johannes, I'm just chiming in to make a point to the list in general here. Nothing personal ;-) Johannes Meixner writes: > Hello, > > On Sep 24 22:22 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote (excerpt): >> One, in sanei_ir.c, deserves some attention as it produces potentially >> undefined behaviour. It's