[#688] mkmf.rb - add files to clean and distclean targets — Michal Rokos <michal@...>

Hi,

25 messages 2003/01/15
[#722] Re: [RFC] mkmf.rb - add files to clean and distclean targets — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/01/20

On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Michal Rokos wrote:

[#740] Re: [RFC] mkmf.rb - add files to clean and distclean targets — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/01/21

Hi,

[#724] Symbols: More Functionality Wanted — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>

I've been discussing this for a bit on #ruby-lang on OPN (or freenode or

23 messages 2003/01/20
[#728] Re: Symbols: More Functionality Wanted — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/01/20

Hi,

[#743] Re: Symbols: More Functionality Wanted — "Pit Capitain" <pit@...> 2003/01/21

On 20 Jan 2003 at 15:49, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#767] Re: Symbols: More Functionality Wanted — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/01/22

[#768] Re: Symbols: More Functionality Wanted — dblack@... 2003/01/22

Hi --

[#779] Re: Symbols: More Functionality Wanted — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/01/23

On Thursday, January 23, 2003, 6:28:04 AM, dblack wrote:

Re: [Patch] Wall compilation

From: nobu.nokada@...
Date: 2003-01-16 07:43:25 UTC
List: ruby-core #698
Hi,

At Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:38:09 +0900,
Michal Rokos wrote:
> >>	If you read the patch, please note change in defines.h
> >>	FLUSH_REGISTER_WINDOWS is now defined everytime, but
> >>	compilation with -O2 handles empty proc body quite well
> >>	(ie. no code - no useless jumps).
> > Is it needed?
> 
> 	Try -Wall compilation. It warns badly (gcc-3.2.2) about the
> 	code has no effect and so on, which looks ugly to me. This
> 	patch has the same result (code has no effect), but without
> 	warnings from compiler.

> > What about ((void)0) ?
> 
> 	Again - gcc warns about 'code has no effect'...

I've used this (void)0 trick many times, we have to replace
them all to make gcc 3.2.2 quiet?

Anyhow, what it defines assert() in <assert.h> if NDEBUG?

-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread