What about these three warnings do you think is a concern?
Have you actually looked at the code in question to see
if the possibility of data loss is real and unintentional?
What makes you think that these warnings are not just a case
of the compiler blowing smoke?
--
D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL
you wish to respond, my
email address is in the header
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 8:28 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] SQLite as a Windows kernel tool
>
>
> What i
> Look I'm certain you mean well, but the rest of us are pretty busy
using
> one of the best small footprint databases on the planet. That means
we
> are way too busy to nit-pic a good product to pieces, just because it
> won't compile clean using Mickeysoft's latest and greatest.
It's not a
What is important is the implication of the compile warnings. I agree
that they should not be ignored, but they should be understood. For
example we always take pains to remove all compiler warnings, even the
innocuous and gratuitous ones, so that "noise" does not hide a
significant warning.
teve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rg] On Behalf Of Fred Williams
Sent: 31 October 2005 05:19
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: RE: [sqlite] SQLite as a Windows kernel tool
Look I'm certain you mean well, but the rest of us are pretty busy using
o
I have been silently reading the conversation, but I have
to reply on this latest message.
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Look I'm certain you mean well, but the rest of us are pretty busy using
one of the best small footprint databases on the planet.
On 10/31/05, Fred Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look I'm certain you mean well, but the rest of us are pretty busy using
> one of the best small footprint databases on the planet. That means we
> are way too busy to nit-pic a good product to pieces, just because it
> won't compile clean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Ken & Deb Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
vdbeapi.c
e:\SQLITE\327\Source\vdbeapi.c(55) : warning C4244: 'return' :
conversion from 'i64' to 'int', possible loss of data
e:\SQLITE\327\Source\vdbeapi.c(195) : warning C4244: '=' : conversion
from 'double' to
This has been the whole point of my emails -- I am not sufficiently
familiar with the actual code details for me to make that
determination. There are no comments to indicate whether the implicit
cast is 'safe' or not. I know that some casts are a simple fact of
life, especially in UN!X
Ken & Deb Allen wrote:
I had a quick look at some of the code, but I am not certain whether
all, or even most, of these warnings can be safely ignored or not. I
tried modifying the code to add explicit casts to eliminate all of the
warnings, which worked, but I do not know whether or not
10 matches
Mail list logo
