[Ffmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Fix some gcc warnings

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:40:24PM +0200, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:12:18 +0100
> M?ns Rullg?rd <mru at inprovide.com> wrote:
> 
> > Aurelien Jacobs <aurel at gnuage.org> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:28:00 +0100 (BST)
> > > M?ns Rullg?rd <mru at inprovide.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> 
> > >> Colin Ward said:
> > >> >
> > >> > Michel Bardiaux wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >    [Snip]
> > >> >
> > >> >    Yay!
> > >> >
> > >> >    I noticed that FFMPEG can be a little noisy to compile.  Lots
> > >of > > "unused variable" type warnings.  I was wondering if people
> > >would be > > interested in patches for these.  Should I submit some
> > >or are people > > not really worried?
> > >> 
> > >> I thought I had cleaned up most of those.
> > >
> > > That's true. But there are still some of them left, especially in
> > > snow.c. Attached a patch which fixes all the remaining "unused
> > > variable" I had with my config.
> > >
> > > Also note that the patch which initiated this thread don't fix
> > > "unused variable". It in fact fixes "assignment makes pointer from
> > > integer without a cast" in bitstream.h which is included in a lot of
> > > files, and so which causes warnings all along the build.
> > 
> > Are you using gcc 4, or some extra pedantic flags?  I don't see those
> > warnings.
> 
> Oh, sure, I should have mentioned that I use gcc 4 !
> And that I also get tons of warnings about pointers which differ
> in signedness. I may try to workaround those too...

iam not sure how you want to "workaround" those but
iam against making the code less readable due to silly signedness warnings


[...]
> > > Index: libavcodec/snow.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvsroot/ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec/snow.c,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.62
> > > diff -u -r1.62 snow.c
> > > --- libavcodec/snow.c	21 Aug 2005 22:17:41 -0000	1.62
> > > +++ libavcodec/snow.c	21 Sep 2005 20:34:56 -0000
> > 
> > I didn't touch snow last time around, since it is fairly actively
> > worked on, and I didn't want to disrupt any work in progress.
> 
> Hum... somewhat true. But there wasn't lots of commits in snow.c
> since quite some time. Moreover, removed variables should be
> really harmless (mostly some 'i').
> Michael, are you ok with this ?

ok

[...]
-- 
Michael