> returning a pointer to something on the stack is something I call an error
Right, but it's not doing that :)
--
Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lattica, Inc.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Pouech Eric DMI AEI CAEN wrote:
returning a pointer to something on the stack is something I call an error
(how do you ensure that the buffer will not get overwritten by another function
call ?)
It's not returning a pointer to something on the stack. It is returning
drive
hq.org> Copie à : > Objet : Re: fixes for -Wmissing-declarations and -Wwrite-strings warnings> > From: "Pouech Eric DMI AEI CAEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > looking at the patch, I saw something in the code that made me sick:> > char *audioAutoDetect(void)> >
From: "Pouech Eric DMI AEI CAEN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> looking at the patch, I saw something in the code that made me sick:
> char *audioAutoDetect(void)
> {
> [snip]
> char *driversFound[10];
> [snip]
> return driversFound[0];
> [snip]
> }
>
> can someone fix that broken code ?
Yeah, it's
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Imperfect - it should be static const char * const ignored_fstypes[]
True. However I don't have enough time to rewrite all the things that
annoy me... for example in winecfg, somebody has named their functions
get() and put()... why not just call them g() and p() for mo
looking at the patch, I saw something in the code that made me sick:char *audioAutoDetect(void)
{
[snip]
char *driversFound[10];[snip]
return driversFound[0];[snip]
}
can someone fix that broken code ?that would be another nice janitorial task to check whether this kind of error exists somew
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 08:31:36PM +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
> ChangeLog:
> * fixes for -Wmissing-declarations and -Wwrite-strings warnings
Argh, this is what I had done recently but didn't manage to submit yet.
(I told in a mail that I had done programs/ and tools/)
>
