Re: Anyone else compiling with GCC 10.2 on Debian Testing?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2021 17 Jan 01:54 -0600, Thomas Beierlein wrote:
> We are aware of the warnings. They are mostly false positives about
> string operations and one about a pointer initialization.

Is the pointer warning this one:

In file included from ../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.c:46:
../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.h:102:28: warning: pointer targets in initialization 
of ‘int *’ from ‘rig_model_t *’ {aka ‘unsigned int *’} differ in signedness 
[-Wpointer-sign]
  102 |         (cfg_arg_t){.int_p=&var, .min=minval, .max=maxval}
      |                            ^
../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.c:1121:25: note: in expansion of macro ‘CFG_INT’
 1121 |     {"RIGMODEL",        CFG_INT(myrig_model, 0, 9999)},
      |                         ^~~~~~~
../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.h:102:28: note: (near initialization for 
‘(anonymous).<anonymous>.int_p’)
  102 |         (cfg_arg_t){.int_p=&var, .min=minval, .max=maxval}
      |                            ^
../../tlf/src/parse_logcfg.c:1121:25: note: in expansion of macro ‘CFG_INT’
 1121 |     {"RIGMODEL",        CFG_INT(myrig_model, 0, 9999)},
      |                         ^~~~~~~

I was looking that over last night and is it a case that the macro and
function need to be duplicated for the unsigned int?

> Anyhow it would be good to get rid of them.

Yeah, it makes it a bit more difficult to find the warnings and errors
when trying to break things intentionally!

73, Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature