Re: msi: Remove tentative definition of static array with no size specifier
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Andrew Talbot <andrew.talbot(a)talbotville.com> wrote:
Whereas for a non-static array a tentative definition does not require a size to be specified, for example:
char ar[]; /* tentative definition */
char ar[] = "hello"; /* actual definition */
strictly, when the static storage specifier is applied, the size must be specified:
static char ar[5]; /* tentative definition */
static char ar[5] = "hello"; /* actual definition */
This patch avoids using a magic number by moving the definition of an array and adding forward declarations for the functions affected, instead.
-- Andy. --- Changelog: msi: Remove tentative declaration of static array with no size specifier.
diff --git a/dlls/msi/action.c b/dlls/msi/action.c index 982c9f0..8cc36a0 100644 --- a/dlls/msi/action.c +++ b/dlls/msi/action.c @@ -47,6 +47,64 @@ WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(msi); static UINT ACTION_ProcessExecSequence(MSIPACKAGE *package, BOOL UIran); static UINT ACTION_ProcessUISequence(MSIPACKAGE *package); static UINT ACTION_PerformActionSequence(MSIPACKAGE *package, UINT seq, BOOL UI); +static UINT ACTION_AllocateRegistrySpace( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_BindImage( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_CostFinalize(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_CostInitialize(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_CreateFolders(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_CreateShortcuts(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_DeleteServices( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_ExecuteAction(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_FileCost(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_InstallExecute(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_InstallFinalize(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_InstallInitialize(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_InstallSFPCatalogFile( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_InstallValidate(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_IsolateComponents( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_LaunchConditions(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_MigrateFeatureStates( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_MoveFiles( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_MsiPublishAssemblies( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_MsiUnpublishAssemblies( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_InstallODBC( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_InstallServices( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_PatchFiles( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_ProcessComponents(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_PublishComponents(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_PublishFeatures(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_PublishProduct(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_RegisterComPlus( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_RegisterProduct(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_RegisterTypeLibraries(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_RegisterUser(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_RemoveDuplicateFiles( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_RemoveEnvironmentStrings( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_RemoveExistingProducts( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_RemoveFolders( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_RemoveIniValues( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_RemoveODBC( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_RemoveRegistryValues( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_RemoveShortcuts( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_ResolveSource(MSIPACKAGE* package); +static UINT ACTION_RMCCPSearch( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_SelfRegModules(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_SelfUnregModules( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_StartServices( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_StopServices( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_UnpublishComponents( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_UnpublishFeatures(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_UnregisterClassInfo( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_UnregisterComPlus( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_UnregisterExtensionInfo( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_UnregisterFonts( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_UnregisterMIMEInfo( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_UnregisterProgIdInfo( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_UnregisterTypeLibraries( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_ValidateProductID( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_WriteEnvironmentStrings( MSIPACKAGE *package ); +static UINT ACTION_WriteIniValues(MSIPACKAGE *package); +static UINT ACTION_WriteRegistryValues(MSIPACKAGE *package);
I object. Also, RFCs should be sent to wine-devel, not wine-patches. -- James Hawkins
James Hawkins wrote:
I object. Also, RFCs should be sent to wine-devel, not wine-patches.
I was submitting a patch with a prelude explaining why, not making a request for comment. But on what grounds are you objecting? -- Andy.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Talbot <Andrew.Talbot(a)talbotville.com> wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
I object. Also, RFCs should be sent to wine-devel, not wine-patches.
I was submitting a patch with a prelude explaining why, not making a request for comment. But on what grounds are you objecting?
It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix? -- James Hawkins
James Hawkins wrote:
It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix?
Although I imagine that gcc doesn't do anything particularly adverse as a result of the existing code, if the pedantic switch were applied it would cause a message of the following type to be generated. action.c:236: error: array size missing in ?StandardActions? I believe it is also likely to show up under lint-like tools and I believe it is actually an error, though compilers are not required to generate any message, apparently. I couldn't say whether the resultant behaviour is undefined, implemenation defined, or what. And I don't know whether gcc places any surplus baggage in any segment as a result. The fix was just to make the code correct and hence more portable. -- Andy.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Andrew Talbot <Andrew.Talbot(a)talbotville.com> wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix?
Although I imagine that gcc doesn't do anything particularly adverse as a result of the existing code, if the pedantic switch were applied it would cause a message of the following type to be generated.
action.c:236: error: array size missing in ?StandardActions?
I believe it is also likely to show up under lint-like tools and I believe it is actually an error, though compilers are not required to generate any message, apparently. I couldn't say whether the resultant behaviour is undefined, implemenation defined, or what. And I don't know whether gcc places any surplus baggage in any segment as a result. The fix was just to make the code correct and hence more portable.
That's fine, but it's not worth it to me, and I'm pretty sure Julliard won't accept it either. -- James Hawkins
James Hawkins wrote:
That's fine, but it's not worth it to me, and I'm pretty sure Julliard won't accept it either.
I understand and suspect you are right. Maybe I should have made an RFC rather than opting for trial by patch. :) Thanks for your comments. -- Andy.
Andrew Talbot <Andrew.Talbot(a)talbotville.com> writes:
James Hawkins wrote:
That's fine, but it's not worth it to me, and I'm pretty sure Julliard won't accept it either.
I understand and suspect you are right. Maybe I should have made an RFC rather than opting for trial by patch. :)
I think it's worth fixing, but it's easier to do by avoiding the need for the forward declaration, there's only one place that uses it. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
Andrew Talbot wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
It's ugly. What warning are you trying to fix?
Although I imagine that gcc doesn't do anything particularly adverse as a result of the existing code, if the pedantic switch were applied it would cause a message of the following type to be generated.
action.c:236: error: array size missing in ?StandardActions?
I believe it is also likely to show up under lint-like tools and I believe it is actually an error, though compilers are not required to generate any message, apparently. I couldn't say whether the resultant behaviour is undefined, implemenation defined, or what. And I don't know whether gcc places any surplus baggage in any segment as a result. The fix was just to make the code correct and hence more portable.
This also causes problems when compiling with msvc:
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/rob/wine-msvc/dlls/msi' CC action.o action.c action.c(236) : error C2133: 'StandardActions' : unknown size
It also might affect compilers on other platforms that Wine might be ported to. As Andy says, it's non-standard behaviour and so could break even in future versions of gcc. I think the patch could be changed so that very few, if any, forward declarations would need to be made simply by moving ACTION_HandleStandardAction to after StandardActions is initialised. -- Rob Shearman
participants (4)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Andrew Talbot -
James Hawkins -
Robert Shearman