Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:22:09 -0500 From: "Michael D. Norwick" <mnorwick@centurytel.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Just a question Message-ID: <44C58051.4000307@centurytel.net> In-Reply-To: <20060725005534.GA7484@gothmog.pc> References: <44C56443.50106@centurytel.net> <20060725005534.GA7484@gothmog.pc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>On 2006-07-24 19:22, "Michael D. Norwick" <mnorwick@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The following warnings were generated by a GhostScript build during
>>'portmanager -u':
>>
>>./src/gsfunc0.c: In function `function_Sd_enum_ptrs':
>>./src/gsfunc0.c:37: warning: traditional C rejects ISO C style function
>>definitions
>>./src/gsfunc0.c: In function `function_Sd_reloc_ptrs':
>>./src/gsfunc0.c:48: warning: traditional C rejects ISO C style function
>>definitions
>>./src/gsfunc0.c: In function `fn_gets_1':
>>./src/gsfunc0.c:74: warning: traditional C rejects ISO C style function
>>definitions
>>./src/gsfunc0.c: In function `fn_gets_2':
>>
>>This is just a small clip of the warning when building one .c file. The
>>build generated many of these warnings then aborted for reasons unknown
>>to me right now. I just wanted to know what this particular warning is
>>in reference to. Using GCC 3.4.4 (20050518).
>>
>>
>
>This is the warning enabled by -Wtraditional, and you get it for all
>functions that have full prototypes, i.e.:
>
># giorgos@gothmog:/tmp/foo$ cc -Wtraditional foo.c
># foo.c: In function `foo':
># foo.c:4: warning: traditional C rejects ISO C style function definitions
># foo.c: In function `main':
># foo.c:10: warning: traditional C rejects ISO C style function definitions
># giorgos@gothmog:/tmp/foo$ cc -Wtraditional bar.c
># giorgos@gothmog:/tmp/foo$ diff -u bar.c foo.c
># --- bar.c Tue Jul 25 03:53:59 2006
># +++ foo.c Tue Jul 25 03:52:13 2006
># @@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
># #include <stdio.h>
>#
># -int foo ()
># +int foo (void)
># {
># printf("foo\n");
># return 0;
># }
>#
># -int main()
># +int main(void)
># {
># return foo();
># }
># giorgos@gothmog:/tmp/foo$
>
>Either the original GhostScript sources or the port uses -Wtraditional...
>
>
>
>
>
The compiler complaints I neglected to post were about #pragma's in
'traditional' C in numerous header files in /usr/src so this make
sense. GhostScript and it's dependencies compiled and installed but now
I have to wonder if the warnings will affect the funtionality. What do
I put in /etc/make.conf to keep this from happening on the next
upgrade? The GhostScript source I used was from the ports tree.
Thank You,
Michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44C58051.4000307>