hi
attached is a small patch that fixes a gcc warning
greetings
martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: 0001-fixed-gcc-warning.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 567 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20110429/c36ecb2e/attachment.bin
What version of GCC are you using? Trailing commas are allowed by the
standard.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/792753/is-the-last-comma-in-c-enum-required/792767#792767On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Martin Gerhardy <martin.gerhardy at gmail.com wrote:
hi
attached is a small patch that fixes a gcc warning
greetings
martin
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
–
Matthew Orlando
http://cogwheel.info
I use gcc and g++ version 4.6:
Code:
gcc version 4.6.1 20110329 (prerelease) (Debian 4.6.0-2)
I’m getting this with I think it was the “-pedantic” option:
Code:
/usr/i586-mingw32msvc/include/SDL/SDL_assert.h:103: warning: comma at end of enumerator list
( This version is: gcc version 4.4.4 (GCC) )
I removed the comma from my Linux-SDL-code, so the warning won’t appear.
Matthew Orlando wrote:
What version of GCC are you using? Trailing commas are allowed by the standard.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/792753/is-the-last-comma-in-c-enum-required/792767#792767 (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/792753/is-the-last-comma-in-c-enum-required/792767#792767)
hi
attached is a small patch that fixes a gcc warning
greetings
martin
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org (SDL at lists.libsdl.org)
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org (http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org)–
Matthew Orlando
http://cogwheel.info (http://cogwheel.info)
[/code]> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Martin Gerhardy <martin.gerhardy at gmail.com (martin.gerhardy at gmail.com)> wrote:
I use gcc and g++ version 4.6:
I’m getting this with I think it was the “-pedantic” option:
Code:/usr/i586-mingw32msvc/include/SDL/SDL_assert.h:103: warning: comma at end
of enumerator list( This version is: gcc version 4.4.4 (GCC) )
I removed the comma from my Linux-SDL-code, so the warning won’t appear.
You could add
-std=C99On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Kakarott wrote:
You could add -std=C99Make that
-std=c99
of course one could add that - but that’s not the point imo. SDL can use
whatever c version it wants, but should not force the users of sdl to
use a particular compiler option or c version (resp. should allow to
compile your software without warnings with -pedantic imo). and as this
header is included by SDL.h everyone using -pedantic will get these
warnings.
Hello !
of course one could add that - but that’s not the point imo. SDL can use
whatever c version it wants, but should not force the users of sdl to
use a particular compiler option or c version (resp. should allow to
compile your software without warnings with -pedantic imo). and as this
header is included by SDL.h everyone using -pedantic will get these
warnings.
When it is possible, by just removing a “,” to make old compilers happy,
then we should do it. It is the same thing with /* */ and //
CU
I understand that, and agree. I just think it’s time to move on from C89 ;)On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Torsten Giebl wrote:
Hello !
of course one could add that - but that’s not the point imo. SDL can use
whatever c version it wants, but should not force the users of sdl to
use a particular compiler option or c version (resp. should allow to
compile your software without warnings with -pedantic imo). and as this
header is included by SDL.h everyone using -pedantic will get these
warnings.When it is possible, by just removing a “,” to make old compilers happy,
then we should do it. It is the same thing with /* */ and //CU
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
–
Matthew Orlando
http://cogwheel.info
Hi,
I agree with you Matthew i think we should switch to C99.
Have a nice day,On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Matthew Orlando wrote:
I understand that, and agree. I just think it’s time to move on from C89
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Torsten Giebl wrote:
Hello !
of course one could add that - but that’s not the point imo. SDL can use
whatever c version it wants, but should not force the users of sdl to
use a particular compiler option or c version (resp. should allow to
compile your software without warnings with -pedantic imo). and as this
header is included by SDL.h everyone using -pedantic will get these
warnings.When it is possible, by just removing a “,” to make old compilers happy,
then we should do it. It is the same thing with /* */ and //CU
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org–
Matthew Orlando
http://cogwheel.info
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
