[CF-Devel] client compile warnings

[crossfire-devel at archives.real-time.com]

Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
     
      it's been a while since I built the client (gtk) but when I do (gcc
     
     >
     
      version 3.3.3 (Debian 20040320)) I get a few warnings but it doesn't
     
     >
     
      seem to be a problem.  Just thought I'd let folks know about them. 
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      png.c: In function `rgba_to_xpixmap':
     
     >
     
      png.c:783: warning: `cmask' might be used uninitialized in this function
     
     >
     
      png.c:783: warning: `lastcolor' might be used uninitialized in this
     
     >
     
      function
     
     
  I don't think there were any actual errors here - other conditions have to be 
true before cmask and lastcolor might be referenced, and for those conditions to 
be true, I believe it would result in those fields being set by that time.

  That said, easy change to initialize those values anyways - just good practice.


>
     
      gcc -g -O2 -DOSS_SOUND -Wall    -I/usr/X11R6/include -I.. -I../common
     
     >
     
      -I. -c sound.c
     
     >
     
      gcc -g -O2 -DOSS_SOUND -Wall    -I/usr/X11R6/include -I.. -I../common
     
     >
     
      -I. -c x11.c
     
     >
     
      x11.c: In function `get_root_display':
     
     >
     
      x11.c:2092: warning: passing arg 1 of `XSetErrorHandler' from
     
     >
     
      incompatible pointer type
     
     
  I've fixed this - thought I tried to fix it before, but had problems.  Looking 
at the docs, only change that I had to make was the return type for the error 
handler.

>
     
      gcc -g -O2 -DOSS_SOUND -Wall    -I/usr/X11R6/include -I.. -I../common
     
     >
     
      -I. -c xutil.c
     
     >
     
      xutil.c: In function `insert_key':
     
     >
     
      xutil.c:247: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of
     
     >
     
      data type
     
     
  That is harmless - there is code there that checks that the keycode is valid. 
  It appears that the size of the type basically enforces that.  I don't know if 
in the past, or some different systems, have a different sized data for the 
keycode, so it might be true on some systems.

  Or it could just be code leftover from long ago.



_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
     
     
     https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel