On Friday 04 July 2014 03:03:27 jra...@ceridwen.us wrote: > > On July 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM Geert Janssens <janssens-ge...@telenet.be> wrote: > > On Thursday 03 July 2014 20:07:46 John Ralls wrote: > > > On Jul 3, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Geert Janssens > > > <janssens-ge...@telenet.be>> > > > > wrote: > > > > Same issue but this time it may need some more careful testing. > > > > TXN_TYPE_NONE may be used in other locations where '\0' is > > > > assumed > > > > instead of NULL (guile comes to mind). I don't have time to go > > > > deeper into this right now so I'll just revert back to gcc for > > > > the > > > > time being. > > > > > > > > John, you don't *have* to fix this while you're on holidays :). > > > > There is an easy alternative and you can revisit it later if > > > > you > > > > like. > > > > > > > > Oh, just a side question: do we want maint to be buildable with > > > > clang as well ? If so we may need to backport (cherry-pick) the > > > > current round of fixes. > > > > > > Maybe you should just add -Wno-non-literal-null-conversion to > > > CFLAGS. > > > Copy the code I wrote yesterday for -Wno-deprecated-register > > > without > > > the AC_LANG([C++]) block. > > > > I could do that but prefer not to until we know for sure the > > warning is> > > irrelevant. I can imagine clang doesn't throw this warning just for > > fun. Perhaps what we did was generally accepted before but is now > > considered risky ? I don't know. If we can avoid the warnings by > > small code modifications I'd prefer that approach. <snip> > > That's one way of looking at it, though there have been complaints > that Clang enforces a particular coding style via somewhat bogus > errors and warnings. In C 0, '\0', FALSE, and NULL are just different > ways of saying the same thing; in C++11 we should say nullptr when we > mean a null pointer, but for C code I think it's an unnecessary > exercise to go through the code to make sure we always use NULL. > With that you just did the analysis I was suggesting. I think you are right that in this case the warning is just too cautious and not useful in our code.
So I have chosen to disable it (on condition the current compiler understands it) as you proposed. The maint backporting still needs to be done though. Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
