X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <20140924040432.22429.qmail@stuge.se>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:04:32 +0200
From: Peter Stuge <peter AT stuge DOT se>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Banging my head against the guile-for-windows wall
Mail-Followup-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <20140923045453 DOT 56dc3de2 AT akka> <CAOuGh8_bfL2KJDLt-qkU7v0wS3UBkbHeej6ScVLJJfHnOR_6oQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <lvssr7$lun$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <5421FF2E DOT 4010709 AT sbcglobal DOT net> <lvtcdd$53a$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <lvtcdd$53a$1@ger.gmane.org>
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> read.c: In function 'try_read_ci_chars':
> read.c:983:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'alloca' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>    char *chars_read = alloca (num_chars_wanted);
>    ^
> read.c:983:22: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'alloca'
>    char *chars_read = alloca (num_chars_wanted);
>                       ^

This is ugly but if void * and int are the same size it is harmless.

MSDN says the correct header file is malloc.h and that the function
is called _alloca() as opposed to alloca(). Try including the header
and adding a conditional define, into all source files with that
warning.

#include <malloc.h>
#ifndef alloca
#define alloca _alloca
#endif


> posix.c: In function 'scm_execl':
> posix.c:1144:3: warning: passing argument 2 of 'execv' from incompatible pointer type
>    execv (exec_file, exec_argv);
>    ^
> In file included from /usr/local/src/mxe/usr/i686-pc-mingw32.static/include/unistd.h:13:0,
>                  from ../lib/unistd.h:40,
>                  from posix.c:50:
> /usr/local/src/mxe/usr/i686-pc-mingw32.static/include/process.h:118:42: note: expected 'const char * const*' but argument is of type 'char **'
>  _CRTIMP intptr_t __cdecl __MINGW_NOTHROW execv (const char*, const char* const*);
>                                           ^

These are harmless, it's a mismatch between const and non-const. When
the function takes const and a non-const is passed, there's no problem.


> From my scarce coding experiences long long ago "incompatible pointer
> type" and "incompatible implicit declarations" ring a serious bell.

In principle correct, but when the only difference is const vs
non-const it's not so bad.


//Peter