On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 06:51:25PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
Hey Nicholas,
Just to be clear, I wasn't directing my concern at anyone, nor am I
not glad for the work, heck you've probably contributed more to this project
than me. It was just a general concern that I felt should be thought
Ok, I've been paging through the hundreds of errors spewn out by gcc
with the new -Wkitchen_sink warnings. Some are pretty clear, but
many others raise questions I'm unsure how to answer.
For example, given the following structure in parrot/rx.h
(note that startindex is unsigned):
typedef
You could break it up into:
else if( rx-startindex == 0 ) {
goto OFFSET($2);
}
else {
--rx-startindex
}
- Original Message -
From: Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Perl6 Internals [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: gcc warnings: rx-startindex
Ok
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:06:17PM -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
You could break it up into:
else if( rx-startindex == 0 ) {
goto OFFSET($2);
}
else {
--rx-startindex
}
Or simply change the condition to 'if (rx-startindex-- == 0)'. But
the real question he's asking is: what is correct?
:
Subject: gcc warnings: rx-startindex
01/15/2002 01:47
], Perl6 Internals
01/15/2002 02:26 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PM Subject: Re: gcc warnings:
rx-startindex
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
To be clear, what Andy is doing is the right thing (asking what the
intent of a piece of code is), but I doubt everyone does this and
I'm sure Dan doesn't check every single line of every patch before
eating each one, or if he does
]
01/15/2002 03:19 Subject: Re: gcc warnings:
rx-startindex
PM
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
Maybe set the check to :
if(rx-startindex-- == 0)
That still sets startindex to the equivalent of (unsigned) -1, which might
be something like 4294967295. I'm wondering whether that was the actual
intent. I suspect probably not. Perhaps Brent
Andy Dougherty:
# On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Melvin Smith wrote:
#
# Maybe set the check to :
#
#if(rx-startindex-- == 0)
#
# That still sets startindex to the equivalent of (unsigned)
# -1, which might
# be something like 4294967295. I'm wondering whether that was
# the actual
# intent. I
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
signedness of variables, etc. in one or two places to clear up a
few warnings and I'm wondering
At 10:12 PM 1/15/2002 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:06:45PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
Eep, you are right, as usual I answered a non-existing question, but
this brings up a point. Various times I've seen people changing
signedness of variables, etc. in one or two
12 matches
Mail list logo
