[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-inetutils] Cleaning up warnings
From: |
Sergey Poznyakoff |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-inetutils] Cleaning up warnings |
Date: |
Tue, 06 May 2008 10:23:00 +0300 |
Jeff Bailey <address@hidden> ha escrit:
> > @@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ ls_main (argc, argv)
> > if (f_longform || f_size)
> > {
> > #ifdef ORIGINAL_SOURCE
> > + int notused;
> > if (!kflag)
> > getbsize (¬used, &blocksize);
> > #else
>
> If we don't use this, can we just change getbsize to not require it?
We cannot: it is a library function on BSD and Darwin. It raises another
question, though. Similar `ifdef ORIGINAL_SOURCE' conditional blocks are
scattered all across the code in libls, but ORIGINAL_SOURCE itself is
never defined. So, the question is: do we need them at all? Removing
them will certainly improve readability and, as it seems, won't hurt
functionality.
> > @@ -216,10 +216,12 @@ static struct
> > int modnum;
> > } debug_mode[debug_max_mode] =
> > {
> > -"options", debug_options,
> > - "report", debug_report,
> > - "netdata", debug_net_data,
> > - "ptydata", debug_pty_data, "auth", debug_auth,};
> > + {"options", debug_options},
> > + {"report", debug_report},
> > + {"netdata", debug_net_data},
> > + {"ptydata", debug_pty_data},
> > + {"auth", debug_auth}
> > +};
>
> Memory is failing me here - is this the C99 way of handling a
> structure?
No, it is a normal way of defining an array of structures, even in K&R :^)
Regards,
Sergey
Re: [bug-inetutils] Cleaning up warnings, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2008/05/10