Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:31:36 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Signed - unsigned comparison in dosexe.c
In-Reply-To: <37DFD995.E5052D4F@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990916123115.7654J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> The little patch below fixes this GCC warning.
> 
> Laurynas Biveinis
> -----------------
> --- dosexec.c.old       Thu Jun  3 19:27:36 1999
> +++ dosexec.c   Wed Sep 15 19:36:28 1999
> @@ -813,7 +813,8 @@
>    char line[130], interp[FILENAME_MAX], iargs[130];
>    FILE *f;
>    char **newargs;
> -  int i, hasargs=0;
> +  int hasargs=0;
> +  unsigned i;

Did GCC 2.95 compile that without any warning?  I'd expect it to say
something, since the code does this (much later):

  i = (*spawnfunc)(P_WAIT, pinterp, newargs, envp);
  return i;

Not only can *spawnfunc return a negative value, but the function
itself is declared as returning an int, not an unsigned int.

So I think this should be fixed differently.  In any case, the library
is not guaranteed to be compatible with GCC 2.95 yet; there are
probably more problems to sort out.