Re: tools/fnt2bdf: fix a few compiler warnings (1/10)
Austin English wrote:
This series of patches fixes most of the new warnings generated in gcc 4.3.2. There's one issue left, but I'm not quite sure what should be done on that one. diff --git a/tools/fnt2bdf.c b/tools/fnt2bdf.c index 1a14d6c..3c3134b 100644 --- a/tools/fnt2bdf.c +++ b/tools/fnt2bdf.c @@ -595,14 +595,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
if( !(lpfont = (unsigned char*) realloc( lpfont, length )) ) { - fprintf(stderr, errorMemory ); + fprintf(stderr, "%s", errorMemory ); Ugly. You could just use fputs instead.
But if you know that the passed in strings are safe aka no format specifiers in them you can leave the code as is as the compiler warning is bogus.
exit(1); }
bye michael
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:28:37AM +0100, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Austin English wrote:
This series of patches fixes most of the new warnings generated in gcc 4.3.2. There's one issue left, but I'm not quite sure what should be done on that one. diff --git a/tools/fnt2bdf.c b/tools/fnt2bdf.c index 1a14d6c..3c3134b 100644 --- a/tools/fnt2bdf.c +++ b/tools/fnt2bdf.c @@ -595,14 +595,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
if( !(lpfont = (unsigned char*) realloc( lpfont, length )) ) { - fprintf(stderr, errorMemory ); + fprintf(stderr, "%s", errorMemory ); Ugly. You could just use fputs instead.
But if you know that the passed in strings are safe aka no format specifiers in them you can leave the code as is as the compiler warning is bogus.
Well, gcc will optimize fprintf(X,"%s",Y) to fputs(X,Y) (and some other funny stuff when errorMemory is known and constant). But I disagree with leaving it in as-is ... It is sloppy coding and might lead to later problems when used cut&pasted. Ciao, Marcus
Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:28:37AM +0100, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Austin English wrote:
This series of patches fixes most of the new warnings generated in gcc 4.3.2. There's one issue left, but I'm not quite sure what should be done on that one. diff --git a/tools/fnt2bdf.c b/tools/fnt2bdf.c index 1a14d6c..3c3134b 100644 --- a/tools/fnt2bdf.c +++ b/tools/fnt2bdf.c @@ -595,14 +595,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
if( !(lpfont = (unsigned char*) realloc( lpfont, length )) ) { - fprintf(stderr, errorMemory ); + fprintf(stderr, "%s", errorMemory ); Ugly. You could just use fputs instead.
But if you know that the passed in strings are safe aka no format specifiers in them you can leave the code as is as the compiler warning is bogus.
Well, gcc will optimize fprintf(X,"%s",Y) to fputs(X,Y) (and some other funny You mean to fputs(Y,X) ? That's my gripe with fputs that it has a different order of arguments than fprintf.
stuff when errorMemory is known and constant). Sure, the compiler will do a lot of stuff but what it cannot do is improve readability of the code. If one means "write the string out unmodified" then fputs is a better choice as it makes the intention immediately visible.
But I disagree with leaving it in as-is ... Well the error strings are really just static const strings declared at the top of the file. So the code is *correct* and the gcc warning is *bogus*.
It is sloppy coding and might lead to later problems when used cut&pasted. I don't feel strongly about this. But if it gets replaced it should use a construct that better expresses the intent.
bye michael
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Marcus Meissner <marcus(a)jet.franken.de> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:28:37AM +0100, Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Austin English wrote:
This series of patches fixes most of the new warnings generated in gcc 4.3.2. There's one issue left, but I'm not quite sure what should be done on that one. diff --git a/tools/fnt2bdf.c b/tools/fnt2bdf.c index 1a14d6c..3c3134b 100644 --- a/tools/fnt2bdf.c +++ b/tools/fnt2bdf.c @@ -595,14 +595,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
if( !(lpfont = (unsigned char*) realloc( lpfont, length )) ) { - fprintf(stderr, errorMemory ); + fprintf(stderr, "%s", errorMemory ); Ugly. You could just use fputs instead.
But if you know that the passed in strings are safe aka no format specifiers in them you can leave the code as is as the compiler warning is bogus.
Well, gcc will optimize fprintf(X,"%s",Y) to fputs(X,Y) (and some other funny stuff when errorMemory is known and constant).
But I disagree with leaving it in as-is ... It is sloppy coding and might lead to later problems when used cut&pasted.
Ciao, Marcus
If you've got a better patch, please submit. I opened a bug and put these patches there, as they aren't correct. I was only trying to get Wine compiling without errors again, a proper fix would be appreciated. -- -Austin
participants (3)
-
Austin English -
Marcus Meissner -
Michael Stefaniuc