On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:32:52AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:34:55PM +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:11:23AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > [snip] > > > > This patch creates a number of compiler warnings when not > > > compiling with Xft. For example, the FftPatternGetMatrix() has a > > > return code that is hard coded to 0 in the .h file. > > > > As the return code was not used and my compiler did not complaint I > > was lazy to add the definition of the type of the return code. > > Well, my gcc only complains because I always compile with > "-Wall -Werror". Unless you have a specific reason not to - for > example system header files with warnings - I suggest you do the > same.
Our configure automatically add -Wall if gcc is detected (I add this a few months ago). So, I always compile with -Wall. Moreover, I use a "colored" gcc so it is rare that I miss a gcc warning. My gcc does not complaint if I do not care of the return code of FftPatternGetMatrix(). But it complaint (warning: statement with no effect) with: #define foo(a) 0 foo(0); I do not recompile without XFT each time I change Fft.c, my machine is (dramatically) too slow. Olivier -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
