bug-make
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug #27809] several win64 fixes


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [bug #27809] several win64 fixes
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:14:21 +0300

> From: Ozkan Sezer <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:58:04 +0000
> 
> 
> Follow-up Comment #11, bug #27809 (project make):
> 
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> From: "Paul D. Smith" <address@hidden>
> >> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:32:15 +0000
> >>
> >> I've applied most of the second patch.  The first patch is
> >> mostly in the w32 area so maybe Eli is a better person to
> >> review it?
> >
> > I will try to do that over the next few days.
> >
> 
> A note on this: The second patch contained changes to main.c
> which are windows specific, used to fix the following win64
> warnings:
> 
> main.c: In function 'handle_runtime_exceptions':
> main.c:685: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
> main.c:693: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
> main.c:701: warning: format '%lx' expects type 'long unsigned int', but
> argument 3 has type 'ULONG_PTR'
> main.c:701: warning: format '%lx' expects type 'long unsigned int', but
> argument 3 has type 'ULONG_PTR'
> main.c:997: warning: suggest braces around empty body in an 'else' statement
> main.c:998: warning: suggest braces around empty body in an 'else' statement
> main.c:1402: warning: initialization discards qualifiers from pointer target
> type

I fixed this by using %p, which is much more portable than %Id etc.

> To make the reviewers' lives easier, I am attaching a combined
> all-in-one patch, w64-all-20100705.diff.  This obsoletes all
> the other patches attached here. In addition, it also covers the
> tiny patch sugggested in bug #27825 too, so bug #27825 can be
> closed.

Thanks.  I used almost all of the patches in w64-all-20100705.diff.

There's one issue -- with declaration of alloca -- that awaits Paul's
response, since I don't think we should include malloc.h.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]