Re: xcalloc question

On Wed, Oct 17, 2001, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> What type warning do you get?

signed was converted to unsigned (or vice versa) for that argument.

> > Would you mind if for the sake of conformity I reverted the arguments?
>
> Should not make any difference. If the warning is correct it should
> still be there.

Ok.

> Investigating... ah, the definition of xcalloc is a bit odd. Both
> arguments should be size_t as it is supposed to match calloc(), but as
> written the first argument is an int. This makes a difference as int is
> signed but size_t is unsigned. Wonder why you did not get a warning on
> this in lib/util.c:xmalloc() (you should, if you get a warning on this
> odd usage of xcalloc()).

I didn't try compiling the stuff in lib, I was just concentrating
on the stuff in src/.

Here's another cute one - some function parameter declarations
"shadow" global declarations, eg time, authScheme. I've tidied
up src/protos.h and src/enums.h to not generate any warnings,
and all it entailed were the removal of trailing commas in some
enum declarations and renaming of some function parameter names.

What do you think about those?

Adrian
Received on Tue Oct 16 2001 - 23:14:02 MDT