Re: [Patch] Warning fixes
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: degger fhm edu
- Cc: gtk-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Warning fixes
- Date: 14 Nov 2001 15:20:24 -0500
degger fhm edu writes:
> Hija,
>
> another buch of fixes for you:
>
> 2001-11-13 Daniel Egger <degger fhm edu>
>
> * gdk/gdkglobals.c: Don't use GDKVAR for gdk_threads_mutex as it
> will add an extern to the declaration.
This is wrong. GDKVAR is needed on Win32 .. the right thing here is
to define GDKVAR differently in this case... Tim did a fix like
this for some stuff in GTK+ recently.
> * gdk/gdkpixbuf-drawable.c: Properly cast pointers to avoid warnings
> on BIGENDIAN machines.
Did you read the discussion here? This patch looks like it just
hides broken code.
> * gdk-pixbuf/io-xpm.c:
> (xpm_skip_whitespaces): Remove unused static function.
> (xpm_skip_string): Dito.
> (xpm_extract_color): Declare const variable const to avoid warnings.
This looks fine.
> * gtk/gtkclist.c: Remove unused variable declarations.
>
> * gtk/gtkcolorsel.c: (gtk_color_selection_get_palette_size): Remove
> unused static function and prototype.
> (gtk_color_selection_get_palette_color): Dito.
> (gtk_color_selection_unset_palette_color): Dito.
> (palette_unset_color): Dito.
>
> * gtk/gtkcontainer.c: Comment out variable definition and calculation
> just used in commented-out g_print.
Hmm, I didn't mean to commit that stuff at all. Backed out now.
> * gtk/gtkfixed.c: (gtk_fixed_map): Remove unused static function.
Fine.
> * gtk/gtkplug.c: #if 0'ed prototype for #if 0'ed code.
Fine.
> * gtk/gtksocket.c: Change type of mask to g_message to %ld for
> a long.
Fine.
And your patch includes two changes not mentioned above:
Index: gtk/gtktextiter.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gnome/gtk+/gtk/gtktextiter.c,v
retrieving revision 1.60
diff -u -r1.60 gtktextiter.c
--- gtk/gtktextiter.c 2001/11/10 22:06:37 1.60
+++ gtk/gtktextiter.c 2001/11/13 22:22:03
@@ -1813,50 +1813,6 @@
}
-/* The return value of this indicates WHETHER WE MOVED.
- * The return value of public functions indicates
- * (MOVEMENT OCCURRED && NEW ITER IS DEREFERENCEABLE)
- */
-static gboolean
-backward_line_leaving_caches_unmodified (GtkTextRealIter *real)
-{
- GtkTextLine *new_line;
-
- new_line = _gtk_text_line_previous (real->line);
-
- g_assert (new_line != real->line);
-
- if (new_line != NULL)
- {
- real->line = new_line;
-
- real->line_byte_offset = 0;
- real->line_char_offset = 0;
-
- real->segment_byte_offset = 0;
- real->segment_char_offset = 0;
-
- /* Find first segments in new line */
- real->any_segment = real->line->segments;
- real->segment = real->any_segment;
- while (real->segment->char_count == 0)
- real->segment = real->segment->next;
-
- return TRUE;
- }
- else
- {
- /* There is no way to move backward; we were already
- at the first line. */
-
- /* We leave real->line as-is */
-
- /* Note that we didn't clamp to the start of the first line. */
-
- return FALSE;
- }
-}
-
/* The return value indicates (MOVEMENT OCCURRED && NEW ITER IS
* DEREFERENCEABLE)
*/
Havoc assures me that he'll #if 0 this out with the appropriate
comment.
Index: gtk/gtktreeview.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gnome/gtk+/gtk/gtktreeview.c,v
retrieving revision 1.169
diff -u -r1.169 gtktreeview.c
--- gtk/gtktreeview.c 2001/11/06 19:10:02 1.169
+++ gtk/gtktreeview.c 2001/11/13 22:22:25
@@ -3012,41 +3012,6 @@
return FALSE;
}
-/* Incremental Reflow */
-
-static void
-validate_visible_area (GtkTreeView *tree_view)
-{
-
-}
-
-static gboolean
-validate_rows_handler (GtkTreeView *tree_view)
-{
- g_assert (tree_view);
-
- g_return_val_if_fail (tree_view->priv->tree != NULL, TRUE);
-
- if (! GTK_RBNODE_FLAG_SET (tree_view->priv->tree->root, GTK_RBNODE_DESCENDANTS_INVALID))
- return TRUE;
-
-
- return TRUE;
-}
-
-static gboolean
-presize_handler_callback (gpointer data)
-{
-
- return TRUE;
-}
-
-static void
-install_presize_handler (GtkTreeView *tree_view)
-{
-
-}
-
Jonathan is busy working on this code portion, so making this
change would just cause conflicts.
Regards,
Owen
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]