Christian Biere said: > Alex Bennee wrote: >> I was getting core-dumps in both Gtk1 and 2 versions on startup. The >> back trace looked odd and I couldn't catch it until I noticed this >> warning from gcc: >> <snip> > Well, I never got this warning and I think we can agree that the code > worked fine for quite a while with this bug in place. I assume you are > using GCC 3.4? Or which compiler gave you this warning?
Agreed, this is why I was so confused. [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]$ cc --version cc (GCC) 3.4.1 (Mandrakelinux (Cooker) 3.4.1-0.3mdk) Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. My machine it work is running a stable Mandrake 10.0 and gcc 3.3.2 and compiles/runs the CVS tree with no problems. >> So I did this: >> - G_LIST_FOREACH(list_nodes, (GFunc) update_row, &now); >> + g_list_foreach(list_nodes, (GFunc) update_row, &now); > > Yes, this should work but I want to keep using a macro instead and > fixed the macro definition therefore. Could you please confirm that the > attached patch fixes the problem as well? I'll give it a spin when I get home and let you know. >> Reviewing the compile logs I see this error >> is all over the place. Has something gone strange with my build setup >> or have the warnings just got lost in the forest of output that is a >> compile these days? > > I don't quite see what you refer to with forest. If you use the > compiler flags as in the example above I don't quite see why you would > get *any* warnings at all Sorry, I mean it missed it when compiling from scratch as 147 files generates a lot of output and the final link had scrolled the warnings of the top of my screen. I wonder if there is an easy way of summerising the number of warnings in the build at the end? > <snip> > If people don't report (important) compiler warnings, we cannot fix the > underlying problem. I would assume we are not aware of the problems > resp. warning if there are any. BTW, I think your report fixes the > latest bug report, so thanks a lot. I wouldn't have found the problem > until I have GCC 3.4 installed although it must have been somewhere > there. Nonetheless, I'm not exactly sure why this construct worked > before and fails to work now. IIRC, it even worked with other compilers > than GCC Well I've not had any crashes on my work machine (although I don't run it that often here) all I can assume is gcc 3.4 generates subtly different code than previously. Generally I don't see any core dumps from gtkg which is why I investigated it when I tried to update last night. FYI my current diff also has this: =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/gtk-gnutella/gtk-gnutella-current/src/hcache.h,v retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -b -r1.6 hcache.h --- hcache.h 8 Jun 2004 10:32:56 -0000 1.6 +++ hcache.h 15 Jun 2004 16:30:59 -0000 @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ gboolean hcache_node_is_bad(guint32 ip); -void hcache_clear(host_type_t type); +//void hcache_clear(host_type_t type); +void hcache_clear(hcache_type_t type); void hcache_prune(hcache_type_t type) ; As it wasn't building. But I wasn't sure if that was just a problem with anoncvs being behind the actual tree. Cheers, -- Alex http://www.bennee.com/~alex/ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND _______________________________________________ Gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
