Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Stephan Beal]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Warren Young  wrote:

> For example, VC++2013 lacked snprintf(), but VC++ has had _snprintf()
> since at least 2003.  Much harder to work around are missing format
> specifiers, which were much improved by VC++2013 relative to prior versions.
>

fyi, if you find yourself in that boat wrt to the format specifiers, here's
a drop-in impl of those missing features:

https://code.google.com/archive/p/msinttypes/
https://github.com/chemeris/msinttypes


-- 
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Warren Young]

On Aug 2, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Warren Young  wrote:
> 
> On Aug 2, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Ron W  wrote:
>> 
>> This makes me wonder what the benefit of staying with the C89 specification 
>> instead of the C99 specification. Are there really still compilers in use 
>> that don't implement C99?
> 
> Visual C++ didn’t get full C99 support until 2013.

To clarify, by “full” I’m saying that with the release of VC++2013, the 
portability workarounds became no worse than for the wide deployed range of C 
compilers on POSIX systems.

For example, VC++2013 lacked snprintf(), but VC++ has had _snprintf() since at 
least 2003.  Much harder to work around are missing format specifiers, which 
were much improved by VC++2013 relative to prior versions.

But, if you want to hold a hard line, that only goes to support my original 
point: Microsoft didn’t have ISO-compliant C99 support until VC++2015:

  https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh409293(v=vs.140).aspx#BK_CRT
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Warren Young]

On Aug 2, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Ron W  wrote:
> 
> This makes me wonder what the benefit of staying with the C89 specification 
> instead of the C99 specification. Are there really still compilers in use 
> that don't implement C99?

Visual C++ didn’t get full C99 support until 2013.  Viewed one way, that’s 
three years old, but viewed another way, that’s just one major version back.

Just like with GCC, there are still a lot of teams using older versions of 
Visual C++ on purpose.  That then crates a market effect, so that all libraries 
that want to see widespread use also need to build on those older versions of 
Visual C++.

More here:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_C%2B%2B#C99
  https://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-and-c99/
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Scott Robison]

On Aug 2, 2016 9:12 AM, "Richard Hipp"  wrote:
>
> On 8/2/16, Ron W  wrote:
> >
> > Are there really still compilers in use
> > that don't implement C99?
> >
>
> I still build Fossil on a circa-2002 iBook.  (See section 4 of
> http://fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/build.wiki).  I do not know
> if it implements C99 or not, but if I had to guess I would say "not".

Plus SQLite is built on a number of obscure platforms where there may not
be a selection of tools. What would C99 standards compliance give the
project that it doesn't have with C89?

> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Johan Kuuse]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Richard Hipp  wrote:

> On 8/2/16, Johan Kuuse  wrote:
> >
> >  I would suggest adding the -Wextra flag
> > anyway, to trap a lot of other existing warnings, and more important,
> > future warnings.
> >
>
> I care more about bugs than warnigns.  Has -Wextra ever found a bug in
> Fossil?
>

I cannot tell how bugs have been found in Fossil.
But I dare to ask: Would it make any harm to add -Wextra?
Theoretically, for example, -Wsign-compare could catch "unexpected
behaviour" upon comparing.
Practically, this is obviously not always the case.

Anyway, if you find this all too pedantic, please ignore this thread.

BR,
Johan

>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Richard Hipp]

On 8/2/16, Ron W  wrote:
>
> Are there really still compilers in use
> that don't implement C99?
>

I still build Fossil on a circa-2002 iBook.  (See section 4 of
http://fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/build.wiki).  I do not know
if it implements C99 or not, but if I had to guess I would say "not".
-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Ron W]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Stephan Beal  wrote:
>
> As i rememeber it, sqlite3 won't compile with strict C89 mode because of
> its use of (long long), which is C99 (but is apparently implemented in all
> C compilers when not running in strict C89 mode).
>

This makes me wonder what the benefit of staying with the C89 specification
instead of the C99 specification. Are there really still compilers in use
that don't implement C99?
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Richard Hipp]

On 8/2/16, Johan Kuuse  wrote:
>
>  I would suggest adding the -Wextra flag
> anyway, to trap a lot of other existing warnings, and more important,
> future warnings.
>

I care more about bugs than warnigns.  Has -Wextra ever found a bug in Fossil?

-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Johan Kuuse]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Stephan Beal  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Johan Kuuse  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, now it works for both clang and gcc, with the added flags to
>> Makefile:
>>
>> TCCFLAGS =-DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include *-std=c89
>> -Wall*   -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H
>>
>> Is there any special reason for *not* using the -Wextra and -Werror
>> flags, like this?
>>
>> TCCFLAGS =-DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include *-std=c89
>> -Wall** -Wextra** -Werror*   -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H
>> -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H
>>
>
> As i rememeber it, sqlite3 won't compile with strict C89 mode because of
> its use of (long long), which is C99 (but is apparently implemented in all
> C compilers when not running in strict C89 mode).
>
>
Yes, you are right, it is because of the usage of (long long).
The ,included by sha.c, also uses (long long), so even if
looking for a workaround for this in sqlite3.h, the (long long) warning
will still be there.

What about this?

TCCFLAGS =-DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include *-std=c89 -Wall**
-Wextra** -Werror **-Wno-long-long*   -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H
-D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H

At the moment, adding -Wextra -Wno-long-long, I get 320 warnings all in
all, but only 3 different types of warnings:

-Wmissing-field-initializers
-Wsign-compare
-Wunused-parameter

Maybe I am too pedantic, but I would suggest adding the -Wextra flag
anyway, to trap a lot of other existing warnings, and more important,
future warnings.

BR,
Johan





>
> --
> - stephan beal
> http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
> "Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
> those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
>
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
>
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Stephan Beal]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Johan Kuuse  wrote:

> Thanks, now it works for both clang and gcc, with the added flags to
> Makefile:
>
> TCCFLAGS =-DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include *-std=c89
> -Wall*   -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H
>
> Is there any special reason for *not* using the -Wextra and -Werror flags,
> like this?
>
> TCCFLAGS =-DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include *-std=c89
> -Wall** -Wextra** -Werror*   -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H
> -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H
>

As i rememeber it, sqlite3 won't compile with strict C89 mode because of
its use of (long long), which is C99 (but is apparently implemented in all
C compilers when not running in strict C89 mode).


-- 
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of
those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Johan Kuuse]

Thanks, now it works for both clang and gcc, with the added flags to
Makefile:

TCCFLAGS =-DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include *-std=c89 -Wall*
-g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H

Is there any special reason for *not* using the -Wextra and -Werror flags,
like this?

TCCFLAGS =-DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include *-std=c89 -Wall**
-Wextra** -Werror*   -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H

BR,
Johan



On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Richard Hipp  wrote:

> Please try again with the latest code from trunk.
>
> On 8/2/16, Johan Kuuse  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In trunk (f475b943eb), I get a compiler warning when I use  clang with
> the
> > default Makefile:
> >
> >
> > cc -I. -I./src -Ibld -DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include-g
> > -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H -O2 -pipe   -o
> bld/fshell.o
> > -c bld/fshell_.c
> > ./src/fshell.c:109:7: warning: implicit declaration of function 'waitpid'
> > is invalid in C99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> >   waitpid(childPid, , 0);
> >   ^
> >
> > I don't get that warning by default using gcc. Anyway, I can reproduce it
> > with the added flag -Wall, which also gives the following warning:
> >
> > gcc -I. -I./src -Ibld -DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include -Wall
> > -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H -O2 -pipe   -o
> > bld/user.o -c bld/user_.c
> > ./src/user.c: In function 'prompt_for_passphrase':
> > ./src/user.c:191:15: warning: unused variable 'zSecure'
> [-Wunused-variable]
> >const char *zSecure;
> >^
> >
> > BR,
> > Johan
> >
>
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp
> d...@sqlite.org
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Richard Hipp]

Please try again with the latest code from trunk.

On 8/2/16, Johan Kuuse  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In trunk (f475b943eb), I get a compiler warning when I use  clang with the
> default Makefile:
>
>
> cc -I. -I./src -Ibld -DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include-g
> -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H -O2 -pipe   -o bld/fshell.o
> -c bld/fshell_.c
> ./src/fshell.c:109:7: warning: implicit declaration of function 'waitpid'
> is invalid in C99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>   waitpid(childPid, , 0);
>   ^
>
> I don't get that warning by default using gcc. Anyway, I can reproduce it
> with the added flag -Wall, which also gives the following warning:
>
> gcc -I. -I./src -Ibld -DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include -Wall
> -g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H -O2 -pipe   -o
> bld/user.o -c bld/user_.c
> ./src/user.c: In function 'prompt_for_passphrase':
> ./src/user.c:191:15: warning: unused variable 'zSecure' [-Wunused-variable]
>const char *zSecure;
>^
>
> BR,
> Johan
>


-- 
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

[fossil-users] Compiler warnings

[Johan Kuuse]

Hi,

In trunk (f475b943eb), I get a compiler warning when I use  clang with the
default Makefile:


cc -I. -I./src -Ibld -DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include-g
-O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H -O2 -pipe   -o bld/fshell.o
-c bld/fshell_.c
./src/fshell.c:109:7: warning: implicit declaration of function 'waitpid'
is invalid in C99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  waitpid(childPid, , 0);
  ^

I don't get that warning by default using gcc. Anyway, I can reproduce it
with the added flag -Wall, which also gives the following warning:

gcc -I. -I./src -Ibld -DFOSSIL_DYNAMIC_BUILD=1 -I/usr/local/include -Wall
-g -O2 -DHAVE_AUTOCONFIG_H -D_HAVE_SQLITE_CONFIG_H -O2 -pipe   -o
bld/user.o -c bld/user_.c
./src/user.c: In function 'prompt_for_passphrase':
./src/user.c:191:15: warning: unused variable 'zSecure' [-Wunused-variable]
   const char *zSecure;
   ^

BR,
Johan
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

[fossil-users] compiler warnings

[Ron Aaron]

Cross-compiling for Windows using mingw32 gcc 4.8.2 ( -O3 -Wall ) I get:

./src/sqlite3.c: In function 'balance':
./src/sqlite3.c:57557:22: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
[-Warray-bounds]
 pOld = apCopy[++j];

and

./src/th.c: In function 'Th_ListAppend':
./src/th.c:194:5: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when
assuming that (X + c) = X is always true [-Wstrict-overflow]
   if( nReqpBuffer-nBufAlloc ){
 ^

-- 
For confidential messages, please use my GnuPG key
http://ronware.org/gpg_key.html




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users