|
From: | Markus Mützel |
Subject: | [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #60886] Command line option '--gui' ignored when used together with '--path' |
Date: | Sun, 11 Jul 2021 07:13:50 -0400 (EDT) |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.124 Safari/537.36 Edg/91.0.864.67 |
Update of bug #60886 (project octave): Status: Confirmed => In Progress Operating System: GNU/Linux => Any _______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #5: The attached patch changes the "main.cc" wrapper program to use "getopt" instead of our own command line arguments parsing. (I only did very limited testing so far. But it fixes the original use case described in comment #0 for me.) Since this is very similar to what is done in octave.cc, I thought we could re-use the same functions. Including "options-usage.h" in "main.in.cc" however means that the following warnings are emitted when building: GEN src/main.cc CXX src/octave-main.o config.status: creating build-aux/subst-script-vals.sh-tmp config.status: executing build-aux/subst-script-vals.sh commands In file included from src/main.cc:83: ../libinterp/options-usage.h:199:1: warning: ‘void octave_print_version_and_exit()’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 199 | octave_print_version_and_exit (void) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ../libinterp/options-usage.h:191:1: warning: ‘void octave_print_terse_usage_and_exit()’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 191 | octave_print_terse_usage_and_exit (void) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ../libinterp/options-usage.h:132:1: warning: ‘void octave_print_verbose_usage_and_exit()’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function] 132 | octave_print_verbose_usage_and_exit (void) | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CXXLD src/octave Should we try and silence those warnings? What would be the best strategy for that? Since this is a change that might have a larger impact, I was targeting the default branch. However, this is also a regression from Octave 5. Should it land on stable instead? (file #51661) _______________________________________________________ Additional Item Attachment: File name: bug60886_getopts.patch Size:10 KB <https://file.savannah.gnu.org/file/bug60886_getopts.patch?file_id=51661> _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60886> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |