Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides, who knows... compilers may eventually be able to optimize
> away that xalloc_die call, in spite of the intermediate size_t.
If GCC ever gets that smart, then it will issue the same
warning as it does now without the unsigned_int hack.
Shouldn't
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> With gcc-4.0 -O -Wall, I get these new warnings:
>
> Odd; I don't get those warnings with gcc 4.0.0 -O -Wall:
>
> $ gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -O -Wall -c mktime.c
> $ gcc --version | sed 1q
> gcc (GCC) 4.0.0
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With gcc-4.0 -O -Wall, I get these new warnings:
Odd; I don't get those warnings with gcc 4.0.0 -O -Wall:
$ gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -O -Wall -c mktime.c
$ gcc --version | sed 1q
gcc (GCC) 4.0.0
Anyway, I installed this patch into coreutils. Can y
Tim Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I had a bug report that 'who -b' and 'who -r' fail to give output with
> this patch. This fixes it:
Thanks for reporting that. IS_USER_PROCESS is already defined in
readutmp.h, so I installed this simpler patch in both coreutils
and gnulib.
2005-06-22 P
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Oskar Liljeblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>>> quotearg.c: In function `quotearg_n_options':
>>> quotearg.c:586: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of
>>> data type
...
> My own experience is that that particular warning is more
Oskar Liljeblad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 13:47, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> >
>> > I get that warning without both -W and -Wall, I think.
>> > (gcc 3.3.6)
>>
>> I've tried with the following versions of gcc on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:
>> gcc-3.3 (GCC) 3.3.6 (Debian
On Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 13:47, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >
> > I get that warning without both -W and -Wall, I think.
> > (gcc 3.3.6)
>
> I've tried with the following versions of gcc on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:
> gcc-3.3 (GCC) 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-6)
> gcc-3.4 (GCC) 3.4.5 20050605 (prere
Oskar Liljeblad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 11:50, Jim Meyering wrote:
...
>> These days, I rarely use -W (and never use it with -Werror),
>> for precisely that reason.
>
> I get that warning without both -W and -Wall, I think.
> (gcc 3.3.6)
I've tried with the foll
On Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 11:50, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Isn't that a cure that is worse than the disease? That patch will
> > slow down the code on his platform, by causing the compiler to insert
> > a run-time check where it now does the check at compile-time (and can
> > therefore omit the
With gcc-4.0 -O -Wall, I get these new warnings:
mktime.c: In function 'ranged_convert':
mktime.c:244: warning: 'tm.tm_zone' may be used uninitialized in this function
mktime.c:244: warning: 'tm.tm_gmtoff' may be used uninitialized in this
function
mktime.c:244: warning: 'tm.tm_isdst' may
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Oskar Liljeblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What's the proper way to fix these warnings?
>>>
>>> quotearg.c: In function `quotearg_n_options':
>>> quotearg.c:586: warning: comparison is always false due to l
I installed the following (slightly different) patch for that problem,
into gnulib. It's tested with GNU tar.
2005-06-22 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* xmalloc.c (HAVE_GNU_CALLOC): New constant.
(xcalloc): Use it to avoid needless tests.
Problem reported by Jim Meyer
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Oskar Liljeblad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What's the proper way to fix these warnings?
>>
>> quotearg.c: In function `quotearg_n_options':
>> quotearg.c:586: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of
>> data type
>
> Paul, if you d
13 matches
Mail list logo
