On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 08:16:21PM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
Is this version of gcc broken in some way relative to other gcc versions, or newer, or ... ? We certainly don't want to see warnings under gcc, since it's heavily used, but I'm not clear on why other versions of gcc aren't producing these warnings (or are they, and people have been ignoring that?).
Well, I said 4.0.3, and that was wrong. It's actually a pre-release of 4.0.3 (in Debian's 'unstable' distribution.) However, 4.0.2 (the actual release) behaves the same way. The normal make process shows quite a lot of output on systems that use gcc, so I wouldn't be surprised if people did ignore it, for the most part. My main problem with fixing the warnings is that I don't see the difference between, for example, the 'ssize' variable and the 'nchannels' variable in linuxaudio's lad_obuffree/lad_bufsize/lad_obufcount. 'ssize' gets a warning, 'nchannels' doesn't, yet how they are treated is not particularly different. The ssize output parameter gets set inside a switch, is directly followed by a break, and the switch is directly followed by a set of the nchannels output parameter. The only way through the switch is through the set of ssize. I understand the compiler doesn't "see" it this way, but who knows for how long :) I guess we ignore this until we're closer to a 2.5alpha1 ;P -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!