Re: PUPA emu patch

[Marco Gerards]

Jeroen Dekkers <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:42:20PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > Jeroen Dekkers <address@hidden> writes:
> > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 07:38:34PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > > > +static struct argp_option options[] = {
> > > > +  {"root-device", 'r', "FILE", 0, "use DEV as the root device", 0},
> > > > +  {"device-map",  'm', "FILE", 0, "use DEV as the root device 
> > > > [default=guessed]", 0},
> > > > +  {"directory",   'd', "DIR",  0, "use PUPA files in the directory 
> > > > DIR", 0},
> > > > +  {"verbose",     'v', 0     , 0, "print verbose messages", 0},
> > > > +  { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
> > > > +};
> > > 
> > > Either FILE should be DEV or DEV should be FILE but they need to be
> > > the same.  You don't have to write all those trailing zero's.  The
> > > last fields are filled with zero automatically by C.  So you could
> > > write the last line as { 0 } for example.
> > 
> > You are right about DEV and FILE, I will change that.  I've included
> > the zeros to silent gcc.  It produces a lot of warnings.  I hate it
> > when I get a lot of warnings because that makes difficult to see real
> > problems.
> 
> That's because of -W. IMHO -W shouldn't be used as it warns to often
> for code which isn't wrong.  That's the reason it isn't included with
> -Wall.

In that case I will change my patch by removing some 0's.  What about
using -Wall?  Too many warnings will cause more problems than too
less, IMHO.

Thanks,
Marco