On Tue, 16 Aug 2016, dw wrote: > Attempting to follow Martin's suggestions, I'm attaching the next three (I > *think* this is the organization he requested). Ok to push?
uchar.patch and ntsecapi.patch are ok with me. > ========= defines.patch ============ > Fix minor variations in definitions that trigger compiler warnings. > > gs_support.c: > - The minor variation causes a 'redefines' error. > cephes_emath.h: > - The minor variations cause 'redefines' errors. > dxgi.h: > - Cheap way to avoid 'redefine' errors. > aviriff.h, basetyps.h, combaseapi.h, gpedit.h: > - Redefine errors. > mfapi.h: > - Redefine errors. > mfidl.h: > - Redefine errors. > ntdef.h: > - Redefine errors. > winnt.h: > - Redefine errors. Please elaborate a bit more in the commit message about why, not only what you do. I guess "The minor variation causes a 'redefines' error." captures it, but for the future reader, it's quite condensed and not at all obvious unless said future reader goes back to read the mailing list. Add something like "When the same define is redefined, it only emits a warning if the contents of the define differs (in literal spelling, not only value). Make their literal spelling consistent across headers to avoid warnings about redefinitions." Also, the changes to dxgi.h is IMO a different solution to the same problem, so then it IMO should go into a separate patch, but all the other changes here seem to be the same. That is, I prefer having patches split based on what solution is taken to fix the issue, not based on what issue it is. Then you can afford to be a bit more verbose about the chosen solution in the commit message, since it's only one solution per commit. The rest of that patch seems fine to me, as long as Jacek's concern is handled. // Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
