James Antill wrote: > Hmm, I doubt Vaclav changed the Makefile and I'm pretty sure that > isn't the case in the upstream Makefile. > Note that it builds 4 versions of each file by default that look like: > > *-so-dbg.o > *-so-opt.o > *-a-dbg.o > *-a-opt.o
That's good! As I said before - I didn't check it carefully, and most upstreams don't care about such things. >> Also the following warning appears pretty often: >> ustr-main.h:859: warning: ‘map_big_pow2’ is static but declared in >> inline function ‘ustr_xi__pow2’ which is not static >> ustr-main.h:860: warning: ‘map_pow2’ is static but declared in inline >> function ‘ustr_xi__pow2’ which is not static >> ustr-main.h:863: warning: ‘map_big_pow2’ is static but used in inline >> function ‘ustr_xi__pow2’ which is not static >> ustr-main.h:865: warning: ‘map_pow2’ is static but used in inline >> function ‘ustr_xi__pow2’ which is not static >> >> That sounds fixable. > > That code is basically: > > extern inline size_t ustr_xi__pow2(int use_big, unsigned char len) > { > static const unsigned char map_big_pow2[4] = {2, 4, 8, 16}; > static const unsigned char map_pow2[4] = {0, 1, 2, 4}; > > ...so I'm pretty sure it's correct as is, and the version of GCC > used is giving out false warnings. I doubt that. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00182.html Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bzed.de/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]