As far as the 'sea of non-critical warnings', you aren't wrong.
However, NOW is sorta the best time to do this, since we are between
releases, and it gives us as much time as possible to fix them. All
patches to fix warnings are looked on quite favorably :)
-Erich
On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 21:55 +0000, Light, John J wrote:
> I?ve noticed a great increase in the number of warnings during build.
> There have been more warnings in recently merged code, but this
> lastest increase seems to be the result of ratcheting up the warning
> threshold.
>
>
>
> I suspect we are well into the territory where critical warnings won?t
> be seen because they will be lost in a sea of non-critical warnings.
>
>
>
> Leaving that aside, I have a coding question in this new regime.
>
>
>
> A C file I am modifying but didn?t write has the following code:
>
>
>
> OCPersistentStorage ps = {};
>
> ps.open = client_fopen;
>
> ps.read = fread;
>
> ps.write = fwrite;
>
> ps.close = fclose;
>
> ps.unlink = unlink;
>
>
>
> This gets a warning about each line, like:
>
>
>
> warning: missing initializer for member
> 'OCPersistentStorage::open'
>
>
>
> I can eliminate the warnings by coding it thus:
>
>
>
> OCPersistentStorage ps = { client_fopen, fread, fwrite, fclose,
> unlink };
>
> OCRegisterPersistentStorageHandler(&ps);
>
>
>
> But this seems more fragile since the ordering matters.
>
>
>
> Is there a C initialization method I?m missing?
>
>
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iotivity-dev mailing list
> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
