[REPATCH]Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jonathan Stowe wrote: This might spoil someones future plans but doesn't break anything existing AFAICT - apart from those pesky ones left in misc.c the only ones left should be from generated code which I have a plan for which I will share later :) This is the same as

RE: [REPATCH]Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

Jonathan Stowe: # - if(!(targ=Parrot_sprintf_c(interpreter, %S at %S line # %d.\n, targ, interpreter-current_file, # interpreter-current_line))) { # + if(!(targ=Parrot_sprintf_c(interpreter, (const char # *)%S at %S line %d.\n, targ, interpreter-current_file, # interpreter-current_line)))

RE: [REPATCH]Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Brent Dax wrote: Jonathan Stowe: # - if(!(targ=Parrot_sprintf_c(interpreter, %S at %S line # %d.\n, targ, interpreter-current_file, # interpreter-current_line))) { # + if(!(targ=Parrot_sprintf_c(interpreter, (const char # *)%S at %S line %d.\n, targ,

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Simon Cozens wrote: Andy Dougherty: Well, I know (at least) two ways to get rid of the warnings. I just don't know which one's right. For example, making the bytecode be type opcode_t* instead of char* gets rid of a lot of them Generally when I see char* in the

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

Andy Dougherty: Oh, agreed in general. Specifically, though, is this one of those rare occasions? I don't think so. We always want to treat the bytecode as opcode_t*. Change it, and if it breaks, we'll find out why and fix *that* instead. :) -- Actually Perl *can* be a Bondage Discipline

[PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

This might spoil someones future plans but doesn't break anything existing AFAICT - apart from those pesky ones left in misc.c the only ones left should be from generated code which I have a plan for which I will share later :) Index: jit.c

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Melvin Smith wrote: (I Wrote): diff -u -r1.12 jit.c --- jit.c 29 Jan 2002 14:05:31 - 1.12 +++ jit.c 5 Feb 2002 20:46:43 - @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ address = (INTVAL *)s-strlen; break;

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jonathan Stowe wrote: AFAICT - apart from those pesky ones left in misc.c the only ones left should be from generated code which I have a plan for which I will share later :) Well, those and the 86 cast increases required alignment of target type warnings we

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jonathan Stowe wrote: AFAICT - apart from those pesky ones left in misc.c the only ones left should be from generated code which I have a plan for which I will share later :) Well, those and the 86 cast increases

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:19:07PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: Well, those and the 86 cast increases required alignment of target type warnings we still get all over the place on SPARC :-). Gah. You're winning. :-( There are only 79 of them on ARM. Nicholas Clark -- EMCFT

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 05:19:07PM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: Well, those and the 86 cast increases required alignment of target type warnings we still get all over the place on SPARC :-). Gah. You're winning. :-( There are only

Re: [PATCH] Nearly the last of the warnings.

Andy Dougherty: Well, I know (at least) two ways to get rid of the warnings. I just don't know which one's right. For example, making the bytecode be type opcode_t* instead of char* gets rid of a lot of them Generally when I see char* in the source, I wonder why it's wrong and what it should