1 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> said: |
2 |
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:55:07 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
3 |
> > What this bug is about is rather the kind of errors that I've |
4 |
> > commented on in [1], [2] and [3] which is that they _may_ be related |
5 |
> > to macros or functions that are not declared/defined by the current |
6 |
> > set of library dependencies, and would then lead to unresolved |
7 |
> > undefined symbols, and thus, to runtime failure. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> or: |
10 |
> - the return value is larger than an "int", and thus possibly |
11 |
> truncated - the func requires 3 args, but user passes some other |
12 |
> number, and compiler cannot flag it |
13 |
> - the user passes args in the incorrect order and the compiler cant |
14 |
> check it -mike |
15 |
|
16 |
this is all very helpful info about the specific problem. we should |
17 |
probably collect this kind of information in a (wiki) page somewhere and |
18 |
point maintainers to it directly in the warning. |
19 |
|
20 |
this would also help maintainers, when pushing patches upstream. |
21 |
|
22 |
overall, i believe, that making the maintainers job easy, by providing him |
23 |
ample guidance and knowledge on how to fix specific issues will make it |
24 |
much more likely for him to fix the issue. this works for me anyway. |