Am Sun, 17 Jan 2021 09:59:47 -0600 schrieb Nate Bargmann <n...@n0nb.us>:
> 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)}, | ^~~~~~~
>
Right. That is the one in question.
> 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?
I am not sure. I had a look into the definition of rig_model_t (the
type of myrig_model). As far as I could tell it is typedef'd to an int.
But then I do not understand the warning. Seem I must look a little bit
more thoroughly.
> > 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!
>
Then just stay away from that evil doing :-).
73, de Tom
--
"Do what is needful!"
Ursula LeGuin: Earthsea
--
pgp39ajO7tksT.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
