> Hmm. This is a complex one. The addresses of local variables are
> always non-NULL, as required by the C/C++ standards (and common
> sense). And its often the case explicitly testing this in code
> indicates a potential logic error, "assert (&hwparams)" instead of
> "assert (hwparams)" for exa
On Tue, 16 May 2006, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > #include
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > snd_pcm_hw_params_t *hwparams=NULL;
> > assert(&hwparams);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > $ gcc -Werror -Wall test.c -o test
> > cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> > test.c: In functio
I'm CCing Ben Elliston who I think introduced this warning in GCC and
Roger Sayle who is a GCC developer and who made a comment regarding
this warning according to Google.
* Samuel Mimram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-15 20:20]:
> > > cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> > > alsa.c: In function
* Samuel Mimram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-15 20:20]:
> $ gcc -Werror -Wall test.c -o test
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> test.c: In function 'main':
> test.c:6: warning: the address of 'hwparams', will always evaluate as 'true'
> Should I reassign this to gcc, or is it a bug in linph
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 01:38:11PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Package: linphone
> Version: 1.3.3-1
>
> Your package fails to build with GCC 4.2. Version 4.2 has not been
> released yet but I'm building with a snapshot in order to find errors
> and give people an advance warning. The b
Package: linphone
Version: 1.3.3-1
Your package fails to build with GCC 4.2. Version 4.2 has not been
released yet but I'm building with a snapshot in order to find errors
and give people an advance warning. The bug below is in your package
and not because I'm using a snapshot of the compiler so
6 matches
Mail list logo
