On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:37:42 -0500, Afriza N. Arief
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Samuel Adam wrote:
>
>> A FAQ[2] isn’t enough, as we can see.
>>
>> To put it another way: Bug reporters should have probable cause before
>> they bug
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Samuel Adam wrote:
> A FAQ[2] isn’t enough, as we can see.
>
> To put it another way: Bug reporters should have probable cause before
> they bug others. A compiler warning is only a reasonable articulable
> suspicion. Note that “probable
Just 30 years of developing C code and too-many-to-count projects where we
always had a goal of zero-warnings no matter what switch you used. It's really
hard (as the SQLite guys can attest I'm sure) to make a cross-platform system.
We use each compiler's capabilities as they are all
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 03:25:46PM +0100, Jean-Denis Muys scratched on the wall:
>
> On 18 f?vr. 2011, at 15:12, Philip Graham Willoughby wrote:
>
> > Adding casts to get rid of warnings is usually the wrong answer in my
> > experience. Certainly you should never cast the return value of a
> >
On 18 févr. 2011, at 16:51, Philip Graham Willoughby wrote:
>
>> malloc returns a 64 bit pointer of type void *
>
> No, from the caller's point of view it returns an int if you haven't included
> .
Indeed. I assumed the programmer had included the standard headers. On my
system, any
On 18 Feb 2011, at 14:25, Jean-Denis Muys wrote:
> On 18 févr. 2011, at 15:12, Philip Graham Willoughby wrote:
>
>> Adding casts to get rid of warnings is usually the wrong answer in my
>> experience. Certainly you should never cast the return value of a function
>> call because that hides the
On 18 févr. 2011, at 15:12, Philip Graham Willoughby wrote:
> Adding casts to get rid of warnings is usually the wrong answer in my
> experience. Certainly you should never cast the return value of a function
> call because that hides the problems you get when it's implicitly returning
> int
On 18 Feb 2011, at 13:12, Black, Michael (IS) wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that all such warnings should be permanently fixed. Such
> warnings do point to potential problems.
> And not by disabling the warning but by fixing the code (explicit casts for
> example).
It's been a while since I
>
> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] on
> behalf of Nick Shaw [nick.s...@citysync.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:50 AM
> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Subject: EXT :Re:
users-boun...@sqlite.org [sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] on
behalf of Nick Shaw [nick.s...@citysync.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:50 AM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: EXT :Re: [sqlite] Compiler warnings in R-Tree code under Visual
StudioExpress
Afriza N. Arief
Afriza N. Arief wrote:
> I tried to compile SQLite 3.7.5 with SQLITE_ENABLE_RTREE=1 and got the
following warnings:
>
> sqlite3.c(120736): warning C4244: '=' : conversion from 'double' to
'float', possible loss of data
> sqlite3.c(120749): warning C4244: '+=' : conversion from 'double' to
'float',
11 matches
Mail list logo