* On 2021 17 Jan 01:54 -0600, Thomas Beierlein wrote: > We are aware of the warnings. They are mostly false positives about > string operations and one about a pointer initialization.
Is the pointer warning this one: In file included from ../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.c:46: ../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.h:102:28: warning: pointer targets in initialization of ‘int *’ from ‘rig_model_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned int *’} differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign] 102 | (cfg_arg_t){.int_p=&var, .min=minval, .max=maxval} | ^ ../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.c:1121:25: note: in expansion of macro ‘CFG_INT’ 1121 | {"RIGMODEL", CFG_INT(myrig_model, 0, 9999)}, | ^~~~~~~ ../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.h:102:28: note: (near initialization for ‘(anonymous).<anonymous>.int_p’) 102 | (cfg_arg_t){.int_p=&var, .min=minval, .max=maxval} | ^ ../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.c:1121:25: note: in expansion of macro ‘CFG_INT’ 1121 | {"RIGMODEL", CFG_INT(myrig_model, 0, 9999)}, | ^~~~~~~ I was looking that over last night and is it a case that the macro and function need to be duplicated for the unsigned int? > Anyhow it would be good to get rid of them. Yeah, it makes it a bit more difficult to find the warnings and errors when trying to break things intentionally! 73, Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Web: https://www.n0nb.us Projects: https://github.com/N0NB GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature