Issue 13371 - remove warnings from teh gsl modules
Summary: remove warnings from teh gsl modules
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: gsl
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: 644
Hardware: PC Linux, all
: P2 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: OOo 1.1 Beta2
Assignee: philipp.lohmann
QA Contact: issues@gsl
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-04-13 15:06 UTC by foskey
Modified: 2003-04-29 11:50 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: PATCH
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments
concat operator not required, generates warning in gcc 3.2 (491 bytes, patch)
2003-04-13 15:06 UTC, foskey
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description foskey 2003-04-13 15:06:17 UTC
Patches to reduce the warnings in GSL.
Comment 1 foskey 2003-04-13 15:06:58 UTC
Created attachment 5620 [details]
concat operator not required, generates warning in gcc 3.2
Comment 2 christof.pintaske 2003-04-14 11:11:56 UTC
cp->pl: please have a look
Comment 3 christof.pintaske 2003-04-14 11:28:14 UTC
vanish from my intray
Comment 4 foskey 2003-04-14 11:29:53 UTC
REsetting priority.  It will crash a gcc 3.3 build.
Comment 5 philipp.lohmann 2003-04-14 12:20:28 UTC
I could apply that patch easily, but don't you think the gcc people
should make their preprocessor behave standard conforming ? Or can you
tell me in what way the statement in question is invalid ? I mean what
do they choose to remove next, #define ?
Comment 6 foskey 2003-04-14 13:43:26 UTC
The message is 'not a valid preprocessor token'.  It is correct to the
c standard and gcc is extremely standards compliant.  Extreme is used
here for obvious reasons.
Comment 7 philipp.lohmann 2003-04-14 14:01:48 UTC
will apply
Comment 8 philipp.lohmann 2003-04-14 14:19:49 UTC
applied in CWS vcl08. I still think the gcc people should see that
they get their act together; the file in question is definitely not C
but C++ and the master himself tells us that the ## preprocesor
operator is perfectly valid (on p.609 2nd ed. of The C++ Programmin
Language, Bjarne Stroustrup).
Comment 9 philipp.lohmann 2003-04-15 10:00:22 UTC
verified in vcl08
Comment 10 philipp.lohmann 2003-04-29 11:50:37 UTC
merged