01919: Compiler warning when setting additional CFLAGS

ID	Category [?]	Severity [?]	Reproducibility	Date Submitted	Last Update
01919	Core	Minor	Always	Jun 21, 2008, 17:59	Jun 21, 2008, 22:54

Tester	user158	View Status	Public	Platform	MAME (Self-compiled)
Assigned To		Resolution	Won't fix	OS	Windows XP/Vista 32-bit
Status [?]	Closed			Driver
Version	0.125	Fixed in Version		Build	Normal
		Fixed in Git Commit		Github Pull Request #

Summary	01919: Compiler warning when setting additional CFLAGS
Description	Hi, When I set the additional CFLAGS '-Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-qual -W -Wall', I get a lot of compiler warnings that may need to be looked into by a developer, like for example : 'comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false', 'comparison between signed and unsigned', 'cast discards qualifiers from pointer target type', unused parameter 'foo'', 'signed and unsigned type in conditional expression ', declaration of 'foo' shadows a global declaration', 'missing initializer for 'foo'', 'signed and unsigned type in conditional expression', 'declaration of 'foo' shadows a previous local', etc. etc. For the full details, see the attachment.
Steps To Reproduce	Add the following CFLAGS to the makefile, and compile as usual using mingw32-make : CFLAGS +=- Wshadow -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-qual -W -Wall
Additional Information
Github Commit

Flags
Regression Version
Affected Sets / Systems

Attached Files	compile.log.txt (4,639,078 bytes) Jun 21, 2008, 17:59

No.01349 Tafoid Administrator Jun 21, 2008, 18:13 edited on: May 17, 2009, 19:48	This is a repeat of a closed bug: bug1882 The note left by Aaron plainly states regarding these extra flags: Well, yes, there are some warnings if you turn up the warnings beyond what the defaults are. There are some warnings we don't care about. It is not a bug. In short, this is not something that the Dev team is currently interested in addressing. The prior report by you is still in the system if we need a reference and there NO REASON to repeat the bug multiple times. I'm sorry, but I've set you to VIEWER because you are ignoring and repeating reports that are unneeded and already addressed+closed. If there is any attempt to try to post this type of bug again or create another account to attempt to do this, a ban from the site will be the next step. You've been warned.

No.01349

Tafoid

Administrator

Jun 21, 2008, 18:13

edited on: May 17, 2009, 19:48

This is a repeat of a closed bug: bug1882

The note left by Aaron plainly states regarding these extra flags:
Well, yes, there are some warnings if you turn up the warnings beyond what the defaults are. There are some warnings we don't care about. It is not a bug.

In short, this is not something that the Dev team is currently interested in addressing. The prior report by you is still in the system if we need a reference and there NO REASON to repeat the bug multiple times.

I'm sorry, but I've set you to VIEWER because you are ignoring and repeating reports that are unneeded and already addressed+closed. If there is any attempt to try to post this type of bug again or create another account to attempt to do this, a ban from the site will be the next step. You've been warned.