Your message dated Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:13:40 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closing this bug
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Jan 2001 16:32:54 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 30 10:32:54 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from janeway.cistron.net [::ffff:195.64.65.23]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 14Ndi7-0005P2-00; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:32:52 -0600
Received: from slipstream.cistron-office.nl ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [195.64.65.252])
by janeway.cistron.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with SMTP id RAA26479;
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:32:46 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: by slipstream.cistron-office.nl (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 30 Jan 2001
17:32:45 +0100
From: "J. T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: <sys/syslog.h> initializes char *'s with string constants
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.9
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.9
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:32:45 +0100
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.2-6
Severity: minor
When SYSLOG_NAMES is #define'd, <sys/syslog.h> defines:
typedef struct _code {
char *c_name;
int c_val;
} CODE;
...and then proceeds to define two arrays of these structs, where the c_name
fields are initialized with string constants. Which is not OK by gcc's
-Wwrite-strings option, obviously.
Suggest changing definition to:
typedef struct _code {
const char *c_name;
int c_val;
} CODE;
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux slipstream 2.2.18pre17 #1 Fri Oct 27 16:55:29 CEST 2000 i686
Versions of packages libc6-dev depends on:
ii libc6 2.2-6 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 84152-done) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Jan 2004 16:14:27 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 29 08:14:27 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from marge.v3.ca [216.66.20.89]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AmEoF-00012W-00; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:14:27 -0800
Received: from marge.v3.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by marge.v3.ca (8.12.11.Beta0/8.12.11.Beta0/Debian-1) with ESMTP id
i0TGDu25011494
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:13:56 -0800
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by marge.v3.ca (8.12.11.Beta0/8.12.10/Debian-0) id i0TGDeOV011462
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:13:40 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: marge.v3.ca: jbailey set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:13:40 -0800
From: Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Closing this bug
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
X-EMSscan-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-EMSscan-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-9.009,
required 5, BAYES_00 -4.90, USER_AGENT_MUTT -4.11)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_01_27
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=none autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_01_27
X-Spam-Level:
I'm using the following test case:
#define SYSLOG_NAMES
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/syslog.h>
static int a = 1;
int
main()
{
a++;
return(0);
}
Compiled with:
gcc -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings main.c
And I cannot reproduce this bug. I'm going to assume that it's been
fixed in the last 3 years. If this isn't the case, please feel free to
reopen this bug, but I'll need you to attach a testcase.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
