From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] MSVC: Fix an "incompatible pointer types" compiler warning Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:44:39 +0100 Message-ID: <4B18BDE7.3050004@viscovery.net> References: <4B1806FB.2050401@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Marius Storm-Olsen , GIT Mailing-list To: Ramsay Jones X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 04 08:44:51 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NGSqR-0007rl-5F for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:44:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752923AbZLDHoj (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:44:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752684AbZLDHoj (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:44:39 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:9885 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751864AbZLDHoi (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2009 02:44:38 -0500 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NGSqG-0007jd-Fc; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:44:40 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00D61660F; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 08:44:39 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: <4B1806FB.2050401@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ramsay Jones schrieb: > In order to avoid the compiler warning, we use the appropriate > structure type names (and function names) from the msvc headers. > This allows us to compile with -D_USE_32BIT_TIME_T if necessary. "if necessary"? Who defines when -D_USE_32BIT_TIME_T is necessary? > Also, I added the "&& defined(_stati64)" in the hope that it would work with > older msvc/sdk versions. I think that this is an unnecessary complication and I did wonder why you added this extra check. Anybody doing some serious development with MS's tools is using VS2005 at least. But isn't the .vcproj file made for VS2008 anyway? > The reason for the RFC is: > > - maybe we don't need the flexibility of compiling with/without the 32-bit > time_t definition (which *works* BTW) and can revert to the original patch? Indeed I'm wondering why we should cater for 64 bit time_t. It is an unnessary complication as long as MinGW gcc supports only 32 bit time_t and the old MSVCRT.DLL. > - I *think* this will work with older msvc, but I can't test it! This should not be a concern, IMHO. > - I've tried to be careful not to break the MinGW build, but again I can't > test it. (I will be shocked if I have ;-) It compiles without warnings and doesn't break t/t[01]* ;) -- Hannes