#6349 closed enhancement (fixed)
[patch] GCC2/GCC4 warnings and -Werror
| Reported by: | kaliber | Owned by: | axeld |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | R1 |
| Component: | Build System | Version: | R1/Development |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Blocked By: | Blocking: | ||
| Platform: | All |
Description
I've fixed over 100 warnings. Changes are gcc2 and gcc4 compatible.
Attachments (2)
Change History (16)
by , 14 years ago
| Attachment: | gcc-warnings.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 by , 14 years ago
| patch: | 0 → 1 |
|---|
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 14 years ago
comment:3 by , 14 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → in-progress |
Replying to zooey:
Maybe we should add -Wno-parentheses to our gcc4 builds?
I no longer think we should, since -Wparentheses indicates problems with missing parens around & (bitwise and) too, and we've already seen a lot of these bugs.
comment:4 by , 14 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | in-progress → closed |
Applied patch in hrev37670.
comment:5 by , 14 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
I've attached fixes after code review on mailing list.
comment:6 by , 14 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → assigned |
follow-up: 11 comment:8 by , 14 years ago
Reviewed the second patch and it looks fine. I looked closer at the Firewire patch and I am wondering why you moved the logging function in the common accelerant code to be static, do you remember?
comment:9 by , 14 years ago
The first patch contains many unwanted changes which you fixed in the second patch, but it still seems to contain some changes that don't appear in the second patch. Is this intentional?
comment:10 by , 14 years ago
Applied the second patch in hrev39320 sans the common accelerant logging function change. Leaving ticket open until it is confirmed fixed. Thanks for your work and sorry for the delay!
comment:11 by , 14 years ago
Replying to stippi:
Reviewed the second patch and it looks fine. I looked closer at the Firewire patch and I am wondering why you moved the logging function in the common accelerant code to be static, do you remember?
Here is explanation. Search for "This one doesn't belong here".
comment:12 by , 14 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
Oh thanks! Sorry, somehow I completely missed that the first patch was actually already applied. Should have read all the comments...
Thanks for squashing all those warnings, kaliber!
I think the patch looks fine upon first scan. The only thing I'm unsure about is all the added parentheses in stuff like
if (a && b || c)Maybe we should add -Wno-parentheses to our gcc4 builds?