Andrew Talbot wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>
>
>> It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix?
>>
>>
>
> Although I imagine that gcc doesn't do anything particularly adverse as a
> result of the existing code, if the pedantic switch were applied it would
> cause a message of the followi
Andrew Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>
>> That's fine, but it's not worth it to me, and I'm pretty sure Julliard
>> won't accept it either.
>
> I understand and suspect you are right. Maybe I should have made an RFC
> rather than opting for trial by patch. :)
I think i
James Hawkins wrote:
> That's fine, but it's not worth it to me, and I'm pretty sure Julliard
> won't accept it either.
>
I understand and suspect you are right. Maybe I should have made an RFC
rather than opting for trial by patch. :)
Thanks for your comments.
--
Andy.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Andrew Talbot
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>
> >
> > It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix?
> >
>
> Although I imagine that gcc doesn't do anything particularly adverse as a
> result of the existing code, if the pedantic switch were
James Hawkins wrote:
>
> It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix?
>
Although I imagine that gcc doesn't do anything particularly adverse as a
result of the existing code, if the pedantic switch were applied it would
cause a message of the following type to be generated.
action.c:236
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Talbot
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
>
> >
> > I object. Also, RFCs should be sent to wine-devel, not wine-patches.
> >
>
> I was submitting a patch with a prelude explaining why, not making a request
> for comment. But on what ground
James Hawkins wrote:
>
> I object. Also, RFCs should be sent to wine-devel, not wine-patches.
>
I was submitting a patch with a prelude explaining why, not making a request
for comment. But on what grounds are you objecting?
--
Andy.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Andrew Talbot
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whereas for a non-static array a tentative definition does not require a
> size to be specified, for example:
>
> char ar[];/* tentative definition */
>
> char ar[] = "hello"; /* actual definition */
>
Andrew Talbot wrote:
> strictly, when the static storage specifier is applied, the size must be
> specified:
>
> static char ar[5]; /* tentative definition */
>
> static char ar[5] = "hello"; /* actual definition */
>
Of course, the size need not be specified in the case of t
