Am Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2009 23:24 schrieb Matt Lavin:
> I've attached a new version of the patch that fixes my compile errors
> and should keep the same function as before. I don't know why the
> compiler likes my new version better, but it does.
I've seen similar changes which make the compi
I've attached a new version of the patch that fixes my compile errors
and should keep the same function as before. I don't know why the
compiler likes my new version better, but it does.
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 18:54 -0400, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> On October 26, 2009 04:43:18 pm Matt Lavin wrote:
>
You are right. The new version of the code isn't quite right. I'll
send an updated patch tonight.
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 18:54 -0400, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> On October 26, 2009 04:43:18 pm Matt Lavin wrote:
> > The first patch's main content was:
> >
> > -return (*((guint *) guid->data))
On October 26, 2009 04:43:18 pm Matt Lavin wrote:
> The first patch's main content was:
>
> -return (*((guint *) guid->data));
> +return guid->data[0];
>
> That was the real compile error. I removed the two static functions
> because they were functional duplicates of existing code
The first patch's main content was:
-return (*((guint *) guid->data));
+return guid->data[0];
That was the real compile error. I removed the two static functions because
they were functional duplicates of existing
code and I thought it would be better to reduce code duplication
Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2009 02:00 schrieb Matt Lavin:
> I recently fetched the latest gnucash SVN source and tried to compile it
> on a Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic) machine. I ran into a couple of compiler
> warnings and thought I'd send my patches so other people don't have to
> make the same fixes.
I recently fetched the latest gnucash SVN source and tried to compile it
on a Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic) machine. I ran into a couple of compiler
warnings and thought I'd send my patches so other people don't have to
make the same fixes.
>From 77b316623aaeb9d10e31f505444b34e050c0a2a8 Mon Sep 17 00:0
