You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> on 2003/02/05 23:05:35 UTC
Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Looking through the bite-sized issues...
Issue 1031 (defect; bite-sized; "gcc3.3 compile warnings") is out of date. Many
of the warnings listed have been fixed (the "uninitialised" ones anyway; not sure
about the many "signed/unsigned mismatch"), and many of the line numbers are now
wrong. I suggest it be marked "resolved: fixed" with a note if applicable that
they may not all have been fixed.
Or ... If the originator or anyone can re-do the exercise and attach an
up-to-date list of warnings, that would be even better.
Otherwise I'd say no further action needed until some of the developers and the
auto-builds have GCC 3.3 installed.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
David Waite <ma...@akuma.org> writes:
> gcc 3.3 is due out at the beginning of next month; would it be helpful
> if I compiled subversion against 'head' of gcc (the eventual 3.4)?
Yes, that would be great!
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by David Waite <ma...@akuma.org>.
Karl Fogel wrote:
>Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> writes:
>
>
>>Looking through the bite-sized issues...
>>
>>Issue 1031 (defect; bite-sized; "gcc3.3 compile warnings") is out of
>>date. Many of the warnings listed have been fixed (the
>>"uninitialised" ones anyway; not sure about the many "signed/unsigned
>>mismatch"), and many of the line numbers are now wrong. I suggest it
>>be marked "resolved: fixed" with a note if applicable that they may
>>not all have been fixed.
>>
>>Or ... If the originator or anyone can re-do the exercise and attach
>>an up-to-date list of warnings, that would be even better.
>>
>>Otherwise I'd say no further action needed until some of the
>>developers and the auto-builds have GCC 3.3 installed.
>>
>>
>
>Can you put a note to that effect in the issue? Let's leave it open
>until 0.19 and give the originator a chance to respond, before doing
>anything else with it. (I may upgrade my OS and GCC before 0.19 is
>done anyway, then there'll be one more developer easily able to check
>the status of this issue.)
>
gcc 3.3 is due out at the beginning of next month; would it be helpful
if I compiled subversion against 'head' of gcc (the eventual 3.4)?
-David Waite
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> writes:
> Looking through the bite-sized issues...
>
> Issue 1031 (defect; bite-sized; "gcc3.3 compile warnings") is out of
> date. Many of the warnings listed have been fixed (the
> "uninitialised" ones anyway; not sure about the many "signed/unsigned
> mismatch"), and many of the line numbers are now wrong. I suggest it
> be marked "resolved: fixed" with a note if applicable that they may
> not all have been fixed.
>
> Or ... If the originator or anyone can re-do the exercise and attach
> an up-to-date list of warnings, that would be even better.
>
> Otherwise I'd say no further action needed until some of the
> developers and the auto-builds have GCC 3.3 installed.
Can you put a note to that effect in the issue? Let's leave it open
until 0.19 and give the originator a chance to respond, before doing
anything else with it. (I may upgrade my OS and GCC before 0.19 is
done anyway, then there'll be one more developer easily able to check
the status of this issue.)
Thanks,
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
David Waite wrote:
> I'm unfamiliar with svn_filesize_t; why is it signed, and what
> differentiates it from apr_off_t?
See http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=639
> The Visual Studio.Net compiler can also generate warnings if types
> would not match due to variation of size on a 64 bit platform, which
> is rather cool.
Probably only Win32 vs. Win64, which isn't really good enough -- Win64
is a P64 platform; most 64-bit Unices are LP64. (Tru64 is, of course,
ILP64).
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
David Waite <ma...@akuma.org> writes:
> I started to check the gcc mainline errors against the known errors on
> 3.3, and wound up getting distracted and just fixing most of the
> warnings in my own tree. :-) libsvn_delta was the one library I didn't
> want to touch, since I didn't have cscope set up at the time, so I
> couldn't examine how the functions were actually used.
>
> I'm unfamiliar with svn_filesize_t; why is it signed, and what
> differentiates it from apr_off_t?
See issue #639.
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=639
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by David Waite <ma...@akuma.org>.
I started to check the gcc mainline errors against the known errors on
3.3, and wound up getting distracted and just fixing most of the
warnings in my own tree. :-) libsvn_delta was the one library I didn't
want to touch, since I didn't have cscope set up at the time, so I
couldn't examine how the functions were actually used.
I'm unfamiliar with svn_filesize_t; why is it signed, and what
differentiates it from apr_off_t?
The Visual Studio.Net compiler can also generate warnings if types would
not match due to variation of size on a 64 bit platform, which is rather
cool.
-David Waite
Branko Čibej wrote:
>Jani Monoses wrote:
>
>
>
>>I looked at warnings generated by 3.3 a couple of days back and most seem
>>to be unsigned signed comparison related as Julian said.And they were about apr_size_t
>>and apr_off_t maybe when the filesize_t issue is done they'll go away.
>>
>>
>>
>Yes, but only because I'll do some judicious warning cleanup at the same
>time. :-) svn_filesize_t will be signed; apr_size_t isn't. There's also
>a whole mess of warnings on Windows which you don't see on most Unices,
>because apr_off_t is 64 bits wide on Windows.
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn_filesize_t (was Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings)
is out of date)
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Greg Hudson wrote:
>I'm concerned about issue 639, actually. I don't remember any
>discussion of it on the list,
>
But there were such discussions.
> and it seems like a rather fundamental
>change. The issue says:
>
> "However, our sizes should not be related to the operating system
> limits. We should be targeting a 64-bit file size (and offsets into
> that)."
>
>But there is no justification for that statement. We have no problem
>with file formats, since we never use fixed fields in file formats
>(Berkeley DB might use fixed fields internally, but that's not under our
>control). apr_off_t doesn't appear in our svn_client or svn_wc API,
>
But it appears in svn_dirent_t in svn_types.h. Which means it appears
most everywhere that matters.
> and
>appears in the svn_fs API in exactly one place (svn_fs_file_length). So
>it seems like issue 639 is going to create a lot of code for no stated
>benefit.
>
>(Incidentally, on most 32-bit *BSD systems, off_t is 64 bits and size_t
>is 32 bits. Since some of the CollabNet people are FreeBSD users, I
>don't think any warnings on Windows are due to 64-bit off_t being
>unusual.)
>
>
The point of the fragment you quote is that our API and our schema
should remain the same, regardless of whether apr_off_t is 32- or 64- bit.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
svn_filesize_t (was Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out
of date)
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
I'm concerned about issue 639, actually. I don't remember any
discussion of it on the list, and it seems like a rather fundamental
change. The issue says:
"However, our sizes should not be related to the operating system
limits. We should be targeting a 64-bit file size (and offsets into
that)."
But there is no justification for that statement. We have no problem
with file formats, since we never use fixed fields in file formats
(Berkeley DB might use fixed fields internally, but that's not under our
control). apr_off_t doesn't appear in our svn_client or svn_wc API, and
appears in the svn_fs API in exactly one place (svn_fs_file_length). So
it seems like issue 639 is going to create a lot of code for no stated
benefit.
(Incidentally, on most 32-bit *BSD systems, off_t is 64 bits and size_t
is 32 bits. Since some of the CollabNet people are FreeBSD users, I
don't think any warnings on Windows are due to 64-bit off_t being
unusual.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Jani Monoses wrote:
>I looked at warnings generated by 3.3 a couple of days back and most seem
>to be unsigned signed comparison related as Julian said.And they were about apr_size_t
>and apr_off_t maybe when the filesize_t issue is done they'll go away.
>
Yes, but only because I'll do some judicious warning cleanup at the same
time. :-) svn_filesize_t will be signed; apr_size_t isn't. There's also
a whole mess of warnings on Windows which you don't see on most Unices,
because apr_off_t is 64 bits wide on Windows.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by Jani Monoses <ja...@iv.ro>.
I looked at warnings generated by 3.3 a couple of days back and most seem
to be unsigned signed comparison related as Julian said.And they were about apr_size_t
and apr_off_t maybe when the filesize_t issue is done they'll go away.
>
> > Or ... If the originator or anyone can re-do the exercise and attach
> > an up-to-date list of warnings, that would be even better.
>
> I've attached the warning for rev 4761 generated by
> gcc version 3.4 20030125 (experimental).
>
> --
> Philip Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue 1031 (gcc3.3 compile warnings) is out of date
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@codematters.co.uk>.
Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> writes:
> Or ... If the originator or anyone can re-do the exercise and attach
> an up-to-date list of warnings, that would be even better.
I've attached the warning for rev 4761 generated by
gcc version 3.4 20030125 (experimental).
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org