Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: X.Org Server: 1,047 Warnings Reduced To Zero

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detructor View Post
    First: Respect to Keith for pulling through with fixing those warnings!
    Second: That may reduce the memory footprint of the X server but aside from that, at least for the end user, it won't do much.
    Third: May god (if there is one) have mercy on the poor soul that'll commit the first thing that introduces a warning into the new codebase...because Keith won't have any. (at least I wouldn't after fixing over 1000 warnings)
    I think warnings can also indicate potentially unsafe behavior that is not guaranteed to cause a bug but might under some circumstances.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    71

    Default "Fixing" warnings

    by disabling a -W-flag ... I lol'd
    Of the 1047 warnings, 380 of them are generated by this one warning flag. Iíve gone ahead and just disabled it in util/macros for now.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    302

    Default

    Lol, some warning flags are quite useless in fact... i.e. stuff like -Weff-c++ ...

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Well, warnings is warnings, it's not errors, it just means, that your code is using some obsolete functions, that still works, but might be removed in later compiler versions, or you are using some unsafe things, that works, but shouldnt be used, and so on. And, in open source world, where everything began many years ago with the first versions of compilers, old part of code is almost never rewritten, and it gets more and more warnings with newer compiler versions - there is like 1 out of 100000 packages in linux, that does not give you any warnings, when you try to compile it. i.e., linux kernel gives hundreds of thousands of warnings.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    I was already aware of this part. I just kind of assume that if someone really needs network transparency, he will avoid this toolkits and use core X11 (or a specialized toolkit, if they exist).
    ViewTouch is such a specialized toolkit.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by startzz View Post
    Well, warnings is warnings, it's not errors, it just means, that your code is using some obsolete functions, that still works, but might be removed in later compiler versions, or you are using some unsafe things, that works, but shouldnt be used, and so on. And, in open source world, where everything began many years ago with the first versions of compilers, old part of code is almost never rewritten, and it gets more and more warnings with newer compiler versions - there is like 1 out of 100000 packages in linux, that does not give you any warnings, when you try to compile it. i.e., linux kernel gives hundreds of thousands of warnings.
    Depends really. Style warnings, obviously, are a PITA if you prefer a different style. Some are quite valid, like the warnings about "if (x=y)", which IS valid C syntax, even if it isn't what you meant when you wrote the line...[I typically have my warning settings elevate that level of warnings to errors, just to make sure I fix it!]

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fabioamd87 View Post
    why, xorg server has future?
    of course it does. it is used by every linux distribution today. and it will be for years to come. sure there is mir and wayland, but those are not yet ready for prime time, and it will be years before they are as stable and mature as x.org is today.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    But if someone really needs that network transparency, they can just use html5 interfaces in their apps in the first place. Why use core x11, when we already have browser engines that do the job much more efficiently.
    You should get a job as a stand-up comic. That's the funniest thing I've read on the web today.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    But if someone really needs that network transparency, they can just use html5 interfaces in their apps in the first place. Why use core x11, when we already have browser engines that do the job much more efficiently.
    browser engines has ridiculous memory usage similar to Java applications

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JS987 View Post
    browser engines has ridiculous memory usage similar to Java applications
    as if memory was so expensive these days ...
    also the worst part about java are bad programmers, not java itself.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •