> > I did compile latest CVS with > > -O3 -g -std=c99 -pedantic -W -Wall > > > > and fixed all warnings that came up. The attached patch is a proposal only > > as > > it touches many files. It breaks the previously posted win32 patchset. > > And it definitely needs a second pair of eyes on it! > > removing the extra "n" from the DEBUG lines looks fine to me and is the > right way to do. However changes like this: > > - DEBUG(4, "Adress problem"); > + DEBUG(4, "%s", "Adress problem"); > > are wrong. If this is for some reason a problem with C99 then we have to > fix the DEBUG() macro and not it calling.
The problem is described in details at: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Variadic-Macros.html You can choose one solution from there. For the above, the also suggest: DEBUG(4, "Address problem", ); Looks strange to me, though. > The size_t change look good, but they might need an extra test run on > 32-bit and 64-bit platforms. And we must make sure that we don't have > any signedness now and so potential overflows. Remember that size_t is > unsigned while int was signed. That was exactly the problem (signed was compared with unsigned). If I looked correctly, those variables are only counted from zero up. I'll split that from the rest and take a deeper look. > While the __unused doesn't hurt anybody, I am not sure if all compilers > can really deal with it. It is a macro and a comment (for lint) for everything but GCC >= 3. I've just put it in because gcc (with above options) complains about unused variables. HS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Openobex-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openobex-users
