On Friday, 14 August 2009 at 11:52, the_cybersph...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Revision: 7968
>
> http://warzone2100.svn.sourceforge.net/warzone2100/?rev=7968&view=rev
> Author: the_cybersphinx
> Date: 2009-08-14 11:52:46 + (Fri, 14 Aug 2009)
>
> Log Message:
> ---
Am Freitag, 14. August 2009 15:02:00 schrieb Christian Ohm:
> On Friday, 14 August 2009 at 11:52, the_cybersph...@users.sourceforge.net
wrote:
> > Revision: 7968
> >
> > Was broken in r7850 (#716). I reverted r7850 and then fixed the
> > -Wdeclaration-after-statement warnings instead of poking aro
Dennis Schridde wrote:
> No clue, but I support that question.
> To my knowledge you cannot compile the unix crashdump code with bad compilers
> anyway.
Bad compilers?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
W
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Christian Ohm wrote:
> The question is, why do we need to be C90 compliant in unix-only code at all?
> r7850 removed quite a few "const"s that might help prevent problems. I'd
> prefer
> both this and r7850 to be reverted completely, but at least now it works.
> St
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 05:03:18PM +0200, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> Am Freitag, 14. August 2009 15:02:00 schrieb Christian Ohm:
> > On Friday, 14 August 2009 at 11:52, the_cybersph...@users.sourceforge.net
> wrote:
> > > Revision: 7968
> > >
> > > Was broken in r7850 (#716). I reverted r7850 and th
On Friday, 14 August 2009 at 15:12, Stephen Swaney wrote:
> The problem, as stated in #716 was
>
> Running default ./configure gives a bunch of mixed declaration &
> code errors in exceptionhandler.c. gcc 4.3.2 openSUSE linux 11.2
>
> Gcc 4.3.2 hardly fits the 'bad compiler' label, IMHO. (fee
> As long as the default settings aren't stupid, I agree.
Ehm, as long as the system isn't being stupid.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 09:21:57PM +0200, Christian Ohm wrote:
> On Friday, 14 August 2009 at 15:12, Stephen Swaney wrote:
> > The problem, as stated in #716 was
> >
> > Running default ./configure gives a bunch of mixed declaration &
> > code errors in exceptionhandler.c. gcc 4.3.2 openSUSE l
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Stephen Swaney wrote:
> I don't see anything about C90 in the command line and have no idea
> where that idea came from.
Erm, that part may have been a typo on my part. I may have meant C89.
(Using "may have" since it's a long time ago and I don't remember
precise
On Friday, 14 August 2009 at 15:46, Stephen Swaney wrote:
> gcc -std=gnu99 ... -O0 -g -Wall -Werror -Wno-unused-label
> -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wmissing-field-initializers -Wcast-align
> -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-declarations -Wstrict-prototypes
> -Wpointer-arith -Wno-format-security -Wdeclarati
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:05:41PM +0200, Christian Ohm wrote:
> On Friday, 14 August 2009 at 15:46, Stephen Swaney wrote:
> > gcc -std=gnu99 ... -O0 -g -Wall -Werror -Wno-unused-label
> > -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wmissing-field-initializers -Wcast-align
> > -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-declarations
On Saturday, 15 August 2009 at 1:17, Stephen Swaney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:05:41PM +0200, Christian Ohm wrote:
> > They are. The question is, where does -Wdeclaration-after-statement come
> > from?
> > It's not in the repo, says git grep.
>
> Don't know where it comes from. My firs
12 matches
Mail list logo
