compiler checks

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:00:55PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Adam Spiers <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > It has been rebased on the latest master, and passed a full test run.
> 
> FYI, I applied the attached on top before queuing it in 'pu'.
> 
> Points to note:
> 
>  * We match the underline and the title of documentation header;
> 
>  * a few type mismatches (constness of full_path and treat_gitlink()
>    signature) that broke compilation;

Of course I will incorporate these tweaks in my re-roll, but it
worries me that my environment yielded no compilation issues even
without these tweaks.  Obviously I wouldn't have dreamed of submitting
a patch series which didn't even compile!  I'm using a modern gcc, and
I guess you probably are too?  Which would suggest to me that either
your environment is somehow set up to perform stricter type checking
than mine[1], or that there's a weird compiler-oriented bug somewhere
(e.g. in Makefile).  Or maybe I'm missing something obvious ...

[1] I'm in favour of stricter compiler checks where possible:
    http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/211607
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]