On 24/07/05 18:04, Paul D. Smith wrote:
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> Perhaps there could be a way to force setting of config.h macro's
jg> for those circumstances.
I was thinking of something like that too. I have to go back and
examine that code again deeply enough to und
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> Perhaps there could be a way to force setting of config.h macro's
jg> for those circumstances.
I was thinking of something like that too. I have to go back and
examine that code again deeply enough to understand it: I can't remember
enough about
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> It it would not do any harm, perhaps we could consider filling in
jg> the missing entries with 0?
I've already done this; the change was checked in a week or two ago.
Cheers!
--
--
Hi Paul,
[...]
jg> main.c:420: warning: missing initializer
jg> main.c:420: warning: (near initialization for `switches[30].type')
This one, IMO, could be a bug in GCC. As far as I can tell the
initializer is correct. The only way to avoid the warning seems to be
to put a full suite of 0
Hi Paul,
[...]
jg> I expect those macros were intended to be used with signed values,
jg> and now they are being used with unsigned values as well, which is
jg> bad.
No, I don't think so. I don't remember the details but my recollection
is that they were specifically designed to work wit
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> Ulrich Drepper's recent "Dictatorship of the Minorities" springs
jg> to mind:
jg> http://www.livejournal.com/users/udrepper/7326.html
Heh. Since one of Ulrich's main points is we shouldn't bother
supporting Windows I'm not sure you want to bri
[...]
Well we can't use inline functions per se. GNU make still attempts to
be compilable by old K&R C compilers: it doesn't even rely on features
available in the first (1989) ANSI C standard, much less features not
found until the second (1999) ISO C standard (which is where inline was
introdu
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> All of these are not going to be easy to fix. The code is actually
>> created that way for a reason, IIRC.
jg> It will be a little difficult to work out what the code is that is
jg> compiled, as there seems to be (traditionally) excessive use
Hi Paul,
[...]
jg> If I submit fixes for these would they be reviewed for inclusion ?
I'm happy to look at them, but they will not be easy to fix.
I'm happy to assist if needed. I hope the 3.81 release can have as few
warnings as possible.
jg> main.c:420: warning: missing initializer
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> If I submit fixes for these would they be reviewed for inclusion ?
I'm happy to look at them, but they will not be easy to fix.
jg> main.c:420: warning: missing initializer
jg> main.c:420: warning: (near initialization for `switches[30].type')
Hello,
I just built on GNU/Linux (gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-8))
If I submit fixes for these would they be reviewed for inclusion ?
main.c:420: warning: missing initializer
main.c:420: warning: (near initialization for `switches[30].type')
main.c: In function `main':
main.c:1790: warning: c
11 matches
Mail list logo
