> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:01:13 +
> From: "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: make-w32@gnu.org
>
> > I've looked at the warnings, and while a few of them need to be fixed,
> > the absolute majority is just compiler whining about perfectly valid
> > code. How many of these warnings go away
Hiya
On 15/01/06 12:28, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:41:02 +
From: "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A query, and a patch. Also attatched txt files of the current warnings
from MSCV debug/release build.
Thanks.
I've looked at the warnings, and while a few of them need to b
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> #if _MSC_VER > 1000
jg> Doesn't it need the #ifdef _MSC_VER ?
No.
According to the C standard, any proprocessor token which is left in the
constant-expression after expansion is given a value of "0".
So, if _MSC_VER is not defined it's replaced
Hiya,
The latest CVS code already has this, from a patch by Rob Tulloh:
/* Suppress some Visual C++ warnings.
Maybe after the code cleanup for ISO C we can remove some/all of these. */
#if _MSC_VER > 1000
Doesn't it need the #ifdef _MSC_VER ? I seem to remember this being required
coul
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:43:54 -0500
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], make-w32@gnu.org
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> As soon as 3.81 is released, I'll be cleaning up the software to conform
> to ISO 90 C. Support for original K&R C will be removed. GNU make is
> one of the last GNU
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:43:54 -0500
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], make-w32@gnu.org
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> make-3.81beta4\dir.c(635) : warning C4701: local variable 'st' may be
> >> used without having been initialized
>
> ez> Yes, that's a real trouble, but it was
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> This is the other file, disable_mscv_w32_config.h_warnings.patch:
jg> --- config.h.W32 2005-12-13 14:47:25.0 +
jg> +++ config.h.W32.new 2006-01-14 23:33:50.0 +
jg> @@ -427,6 +427,14 @@
jg> /* Define to the ins
%% Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ez> I've looked at the warnings, and while a few of them need to be
ez> fixed, the absolute majority is just compiler whining about
ez> perfectly valid code. How many of these warnings go away if you
ez> reset the warning level back to /W3, the
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> Paul, with your next beta release announcement could you ask for
jg> someone to build with MSCV6, and MSCV2002 please.
Rob Tulloh did some testing. He recommended we change the info in
README.W32 to read:
This version of GNU make has been test
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:41:36 -0500
> From: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, make-w32@gnu.org
>
> > I normally prefer attachments myself.. the binary zip contained
> > make_msvc_net2003.vcproj. I attached as a zip because I wanted to be
> > sure that t
Quoting "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
Could you please send those as simple inline text, not a binary zip
attachment? It's much easier to review inline text.
Hiya,
I normally prefer attachments myself.. the binary zip contained
make_msvc_net2003.vcproj. I attached as a zip because
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:41:02 +
> From: "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> A query, and a patch. Also attatched txt files of the current warnings
> from MSCV debug/release build.
Could you please send those as simple inline text, not a binary zip
attachment? It's much easier to review in
[...]
Could you please send those as simple inline text, not a binary zip
attachment? It's much easier to review inline text.
Hiya,
I normally prefer attachments myself.. the binary zip contained
make_msvc_net2003.vcproj. I attached as a zip because I wanted to be
sure that the CRLF line en
13 matches
Mail list logo
