----- Rodolfo García Peñas (kix) <[email protected]> a écrit :
> This patch removes compiler warnings.
Hi,
I hope you'll excuse me for being picky, but you're not removing compiler
warnings here. If you want to remove compiler warnings, you add
"-Wno-unused-variable" to the CFLAGS for compilation. What you're doing is
"fixing warnings reported by the compiler". I know the difference is subtle,
but when will come the time to parse the changes to try to propose a ChangeLog
on next release, it will help...
> ---
> WINGs/wcolorpanel.c | 8 --------
> WINGs/wcolorwell.c | 17 -----------------
> WINGs/wfilepanel.c | 12 ++++--------
> WINGs/wprogressindicator.c | 2 ++
> WINGs/wsplitview.c | 4 +++-
> 5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/WINGs/wcolorpanel.c b/WINGs/wcolorpanel.c
> index 26ca1fc..2977702 100644
> --- a/WINGs/wcolorpanel.c
> +++ b/WINGs/wcolorpanel.c
> @@ -470,11 +470,6 @@ static char *get_name_from_path(const char *path)
> return wstrdup(&(path[size]));
> }
>
> -static Bool filterFileName(WMFilePanel * panel, const char *file, Bool
> isDirectory)
> -{
My personal feeling here is that users would gain from having this function
implemented someday (if it does what I suppose it should), and so removing it
just makes the compilation silent, which I think may not be a good idea because
if we want someone to work on it then a compiler warning is welcome to attract
attention.
> - return True;
> -}
> -
> [...]
> @@ -738,6 +731,9 @@ out:
>
> static void goUnmount(WMWidget *widget, void *p_panel)
> {
Almost same feeling here, a compiler warning is good to attract contributor's
attention.
> + /* Not implemented yet */
> + (void) widget;
> + (void) p_panel;
> }
>
> static void goFloppy(WMWidget *widget, void *p_panel)
> diff --git a/WINGs/wprogressindicator.c b/WINGs/wprogressindicator.c
> index 374df5e..61b4e2e 100644
> --- a/WINGs/wprogressindicator.c
> +++ b/WINGs/wprogressindicator.c
> @@ -141,6 +141,8 @@ static void didResizeProgressIndicator(W_ViewDelegate *
> self, WMView * view)
>
> /* Parameter not used, but tell the compiler that it is ok */
> (void) self;
> + (void) width;
> + (void) height;
>
> assert(width > 0);
> assert(height > 0);
That's a funny one!
the 2 parameters are being used in the assertion, so the assertions should
probably be removed. (actually, the whole content of the function looks useless
as-is).
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
