[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: W32 Warning disabled, and updated vcproj file

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: W32 Warning disabled, and updated vcproj file
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:35:19 +0200

> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:01:13 +0000
> From: "J. Grant" <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> > I've looked at the warnings, and while a few of them need to be fixed,
> > the absolute majority is just compiler whining about perfectly valid
> > code.  How many of these warnings go away if you reset the warning
> > level back to /W3, the way it was before it was bumped up to /W4 in
> > beta4 (for the reasons I cannot understand)?
> It's been set on /W4 for quite a while (since 2005-07-03), I think we
> should keep it on this.

But if all it does is spill useless warnings on us, why keep it?

> > For that matter, why not disable some of the more annoying false
> > warnings in config.h.W32?  For example, "FOO uses old-style
> > declarator" or "logical operation on address of string constant".
> You're right, old-style declarator should be off, not sure about the
> latter one though, it is because of the streq macro which expands to
> code which compares the address, does it need to do this as well as the
> strcmp ? (I hope we can change all of these macro's to functions as part of
> the ISO C clean-up work in 3.82...)

Actually, I think streq and strneq should simply go away: they try to
optimize where no optimization is needed.

But that doesn't change the fact that this warning is useless, as
comparing string addresses is perfectly valid

reply via email to

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