Re: [Patch] Warning fixes for glib
- From: Tim Janik <timj gtk org>
- To: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: Daniel Egger <degger fhm edu>, Gtk+ Developers <gtk-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Warning fixes for glib
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 13:18:59 +0100 (CET)
On 3 Nov 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> This really makes no sense at all to me.
>
> - We can't just use functions without their prototypes.
> - Assuming sigtrap is going to be '5' seems very dubious
> - Add more assembly? There is no guarantee that you can _implement_
> raise() in assembly.
>
> If we aren't going to include signal.h, the only possible solution
> is to remove the third branch of the #if and say "G_BREAKPOINT()
> is implemented on virtually no platforms, don't use in code you
> expect users to be able to compile."
i backed his change out already, but also nuked my initial (5 /* SIGTRAP */)
kludge. the macro now simply reads signal(SIGTRAP) which should be good
enough. this'll work for the cases where we already use G_BREAKPOINT() in
debugging code in glib simply by including <signal.h>, and if developers
of non-x86/non-alpha use this macro, they'll either have to include
<signal.h> or send us patches for new asm statements.
as such, G_BREAKPOINT() on non-x86/non-alpha is in the same class as
g_memmove() by requiring an extra include.
>
> Regards,
> Owen
>
---
ciaoTJ
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]