Daniel,
> - Mensaje original -
> > The first 14 patches in this series fix misc issues in the code
> > which would otherwise trigger warnings. The last patch actually
> > enables the warnings. It also enables some GCC runtime protection
> > features, commonly used by distros in their packa
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:44:48AM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> From 360809ac7fa66e244743aa3d14233ccfb817abd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9=20Lureau?=
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:04:17 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH spice-gtk 1/4] Remove deprecation warnings
>
> ---
>
Daniel,
Here is a couple of patches that fixes deprecation warning/errors to
be applied on top of your series after review. They fix compilation
with mingw.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:33:46PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:33:46PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03/13/2012 03:23 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:00:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Series looks good. I've a few remarks on patch 14/15 though. Also
> >>if you're enable ssp w
Hi,
On 03/13/2012 03:40 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
- Mensaje original -
https://gitorious.org/~berrange/virt-tools/berrange-spice-gtk
Looks good, ack series.
+1
Don't you have commit rights on spice-gtk yet? If not I think
it is time you get them :) Marc-André, do you a
- Mensaje original -
> >
> >https://gitorious.org/~berrange/virt-tools/berrange-spice-gtk
> >
>
> Looks good, ack series.
+1
> Don't you have commit rights on spice-gtk yet? If not I think
> it is time you get them :) Marc-André, do you agree? If so
Yes, I do!
> one of us needs
Hi,
On 03/13/2012 03:23 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:00:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
Series looks good. I've a few remarks on patch 14/15 though. Also
if you're enable ssp why not also add -DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 ?
We do actually, but not via a compile flag. In
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 03:00:04PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Series looks good. I've a few remarks on patch 14/15 though. Also
> if you're enable ssp why not also add -DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 ?
We do actually, but not via a compile flag. Instead it uses
AC_DEFINE(_FORTIFY_SOURCE, 2), which
- Mensaje original -
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:57:25AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Mensaje original -
> > > The first 14 patches in this series fix misc issues in the code
> > > which would otherwise trigger warnings. The last patch actually
> > > enables th
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:57:25AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>
>
> - Mensaje original -
> > The first 14 patches in this series fix misc issues in the code
> > which would otherwise trigger warnings. The last patch actually
> > enables the warnings. It also enables some GCC runtime
Hi,
Series looks good. I've a few remarks on patch 14/15 though. Also
if you're enable ssp why not also add -DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 ?
Regards,
Hans
On 03/13/2012 02:39 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
The current spice-gtk configure.ac script only enables
-Wall -Wno-sign-compare -Werror -Wno-depr
- Mensaje original -
> The first 14 patches in this series fix misc issues in the code
> which would otherwise trigger warnings. The last patch actually
> enables the warnings. It also enables some GCC runtime protection
> features, commonly used by distros in their packages
A lot of cha
The current spice-gtk configure.ac script only enables
-Wall -Wno-sign-compare -Werror -Wno-deprecated-declarations
IMHO, this is not enough, and applications should strive to enable
as many GCC warning options as is practical for their codebase.
Rather than taking a whitelist approach to compil
13 matches
Mail list logo
