[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows 64 port
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Windows 64 port |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:24:42 +0200 |
> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:43:28 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden
>
> >> We don't need to modify the mainline Emacs code in order to
> >> pacify third-party compilers that issue incorrect warnings.
> >
> > What is incorrect about that warning?
>
> As Fabrice explained, the warning is about code that is never executed
> on his platform, because it's inside a conditional that is always
> false, and so the bug cannot possibly occur.
>
> The conditional itself is a constant, and decent compiler
> will optimize away the code in question. The conditional is present
> precisely to avoid the overflow that the compiler is mistakenly warning
> about. There is no easy way to rewrite the code that will both
> pacify the broken compiler and keep the code modular and portable.
Thanks for explaining this.
> > If some compiler tells us something valuable about the code, we
> > need not ignore it just because it's "third-party".
>
> True, but it appears that many of the fixes in his patch are to
> pacify warnings like the above.
Which ones are those? I see many changes that qualify existing
declarations with `const', which cannot possibly be wrong. I also see
replacements of `unsigned long' with a `size_t', which cannot be
wrong, either. Using ptrdiff_t instead of long or some such is
required for LLP64 platforms. Most of the rest is in Windows-specific
files.
So which fixes are for the bogus warnings?
- Re: Windows 64 port, (continued)
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/29
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/20
- Re: Windows 64 port, AJMR, 2012/02/26
- Re: Windows 64 port, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/02/26
- Re: Windows 64 port, AJMR, 2012/02/27
- Re: Windows 64 port, Fabrice Popineau, 2012/02/28
- Re: Windows 64 port, Paul Eggert, 2012/02/29
Re: Windows 64 port, Richard Stallman, 2012/02/20