12:45 p.m.
Vin, if you're thinking about releasing soon, let me know. I'd like
to conform to Francesco's suggestion for the next releases of 21.4 and
21.5, and don't think it will be too hard.
Francesco Potorti` writes:
I would prefer avoiding this, if possible, by defining VERSION in
the
Makefile as appropriate.
That makes sense. This is not entirely trivial, as VERSION is
computed in our Makefile as
version=＠version＠
and that of course is done by configure. But it shouldn't be too hard.
>-# if PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP
>+# ifdef PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP
You changed this to quench a warning, as I understand. However, I do
not get any, using gcc 4.1.2 with -pedantic and -Wall. What compiler do
you use?
Compiler is:
powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 5247)
Compile command is:
gcc -Wall -Wno-switch -Wundef -Wsign-compare -Wno-char-subscripts -Wpacked
-Wpointer-arith -Wunused-parameter -g
I suppose it's the -Wundef. I'm not sure why that was added, and
would rather not remove it for that reason. I'm not sure that we're
100% clean at this instant, but not too long ago XEmacs had exactly
one compile warning, caused by the getopt stuff in etags. This is not
a particularly burdensome discipline.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches
12:51 p.m.
New subject: [AC21.5R21.4] etags and implicit tags
On 5/18/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Vin, if you're thinking about releasing soon, let me know.
I'd like
to conform to Francesco's suggestion for the next releases of 21.4 and
21.5, and don't think it will be too hard.
I'll probably get a release out in June. I'll shoot for late May /
early June and things will finally coalesce by the middle/end of June.
--
The Journey by Mary Oliver
http://www.poemhunter.com/p/m/poem.asp?poet=6771&poem=30506
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches
1:02 p.m.
New subject: [AC21.5R21.4] etags and implicit tags
> I would prefer avoiding this, if possible, by defining VERSION
in the
> Makefile as appropriate.
That makes sense.
Good:-)
This is not entirely trivial, as VERSION is computed in our Makefile
as
version=＠version＠
and that of course is done by configure. But it shouldn't be too hard.
You could just change the call in the Makefile where etags is built by
adding -DVERSION=whatever. WOuldn't that be simple enough?
> >-# if PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP
> >+# ifdef PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP
>
> You changed this to quench a warning, as I understand. However, I do
> not get any, using gcc 4.1.2 with -pedantic and -Wall. What compiler do
> you use?
I suppose it's the -Wundef.
I see. In the cpp-4.1 manual I read:
* Identifiers that are not macros, which are all considered to be the
number zero. This allows you to write `#if MACRO' instead of
`#ifdef MACRO', if you know that MACRO, when defined, will always
have a nonzero value. Function-like macros used without their
function call parentheses are also treated as zero.
In some contexts this shortcut is undesirable. The `-Wundef'
option causes GCC to warn whenever it encounters an identifier
which is not a macro in an `#if'.
I have added something like this:
#ifndef PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP
# define PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP FALSE
#endif
I suggest you add this to etags.c if you are in a hurry to release. I
should soon send out a new release with this change.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches
6427
days inactive
6427
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Francesco Potorti` -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Vin Shelton