[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Libcdio-devel] [PATCH] Fix gcc warnings

From: Pete Batard
Subject: Re: [Libcdio-devel] [PATCH] Fix gcc warnings
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 20:10:45 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0

I guess that would be fdd76a8ee4f4f00f1eabc6f632322db800ee9970 from the pete_batard_ce_v3 branch. And then there's the one patch from pete_batard_ce_v3 with SHA 569c452f8d1650c0ec50ebeef7869b54ed9c8be6.



On 2023.03.23 20:03, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
Ok. Just give me the SHA1 of the code that you'd like to see in master and I will test it as well. And assuming everything works and it looks like what has been mentioned here, I will merge it and let everyone know.

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:58 PM Pete Batard < <>> wrote:

    Actually I don't mind if you guys sort it out as last time I checked (a
    couple years ago), I had lost my ssh access right (which means that
    right now I'm just using https to clone the repo) and I'm a bit busy
    with other stuff ATM.

    I'm actually quite happy to see that Thomas has take upon himself to
    create branches and carry additional testing to prepare for merging, so
    thanks for doing that.



    On 2023.03.23 19:54, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
     > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 3:12 PM Thomas Schmitt <
     > < <>>> wrote:
     >     Hi,
     >     the patch applies and compiles without complaints.
     >     I was riddling about the exact meaning of "{ 0 }" when the struct
     >     has more
     >     than one member. In Linux time.h struct tm is declared with
    11 members.
     >     Finally i found in C11 specs (ISO/IEC 9899:2011 6.7.9 21):
     >        If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list
    than there
     >        are elements or members of an aggregate, [...] the
    remainder of the
     >        aggregate shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects
     >     that have
     >        static storage duration.
     >     And as we know from Kermighan & Ritchie, static variables are
     >     automatically initialized to zero.
     >     I lack of any test ideas for a mere initialization.
     >     So i pushed the branch "pete_batard_gcc_warnings".
     >     It is based on "master", not on the pending "pete_batard_ce_v3".
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     >     Rocky:
     >     I never merged anything in git. If you expect me to merge on
    my own,
     >     then
     >     please tell me the exact command which you would use for
    merging in
     >     "pete_batard_gcc_warnings" and "pete_batard_ce_v3".
     >     Actually i would prefer to have you as final doorman at "master".
     >     Have a nice day :)
     >     Thomas
     > I was thinking that Pete would do the merge since he also has commit
     > rights after the two of you  decide that it is time to merge
     > Pete knows which branch and so is the right one and so on. Of
    course,  I
     > am happy to help in whatever way I can or that makes sense.

reply via email to

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