On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:37:42 -0500, Afriza N. Arief afriza...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Samuel Adam a...@certifound.com wrote:
A FAQ[2] isn’t enough, as we can see.
To put it another way: Bug reporters should have probable cause before
they bug others. A compiler
Just 30 years of developing C code and too-many-to-count projects where we
always had a goal of zero-warnings no matter what switch you used. It's really
hard (as the SQLite guys can attest I'm sure) to make a cross-platform system.
We use each compiler's capabilities as they are all
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Samuel Adam a...@certifound.com wrote:
A FAQ[2] isn’t enough, as we can see.
To put it another way: Bug reporters should have probable cause before
they bug others. A compiler warning is only a reasonable articulable
suspicion. Note that “probable cause”
Afriza N. Arief wrote:
I tried to compile SQLite 3.7.5 with SQLITE_ENABLE_RTREE=1 and got the
following warnings:
sqlite3.c(120736): warning C4244: '=' : conversion from 'double' to
'float', possible loss of data
sqlite3.c(120749): warning C4244: '+=' : conversion from 'double' to
'float',
...@sqlite.org [sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] on
behalf of Nick Shaw [nick.s...@citysync.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:50 AM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: EXT :Re: [sqlite] Compiler warnings in R-Tree code under Visual
StudioExpress
Afriza N. Arief wrote:
I tried
] on
behalf of Nick Shaw [nick.s...@citysync.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:50 AM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: EXT :Re: [sqlite] Compiler warnings in R-Tree code under Visual
StudioExpress
Afriza N. Arief wrote:
I tried to compile SQLite 3.7.5
On 18 Feb 2011, at 13:12, Black, Michael (IS) wrote:
I'm of the opinion that all such warnings should be permanently fixed. Such
warnings do point to potential problems.
And not by disabling the warning but by fixing the code (explicit casts for
example).
It's been a while since I last
On 18 févr. 2011, at 15:12, Philip Graham Willoughby wrote:
Adding casts to get rid of warnings is usually the wrong answer in my
experience. Certainly you should never cast the return value of a function
call because that hides the problems you get when it's implicitly returning
int
On 18 Feb 2011, at 14:25, Jean-Denis Muys wrote:
On 18 févr. 2011, at 15:12, Philip Graham Willoughby wrote:
Adding casts to get rid of warnings is usually the wrong answer in my
experience. Certainly you should never cast the return value of a function
call because that hides the
On 18 févr. 2011, at 16:51, Philip Graham Willoughby wrote:
malloc returns a 64 bit pointer of type void *
No, from the caller's point of view it returns an int if you haven't included
stdlib.h.
Indeed. I assumed the programmer had included the standard headers. On my
system, any
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 03:25:46PM +0100, Jean-Denis Muys scratched on the wall:
On 18 f?vr. 2011, at 15:12, Philip Graham Willoughby wrote:
Adding casts to get rid of warnings is usually the wrong answer in my
experience. Certainly you should never cast the return value of a
function
11 matches
Mail list logo
