[#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: Michal Rokos <michal@...>
Date: 2003-01-16 13:15:36 UTC
List: ruby-core #704
Hi,

nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:
>>>>>What about ((void)0) ?
>>>>
>>>>	Again - gcc warns about 'code has no effect'...

You were right here. ((void)0) is absolutely perfect. GCC doesn't say a 
word. Maybe I confused you - so once again: the right patch is to write 
((void)0) where we need no code.

>>>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?
>>
>>	You're right - as usually :))
> 
> 
> Possibly, gcc 3.2.2 always complains about assert() if NDEBUG?

The same here. Gcc 3.2.2 is OK with ((void)0).

	Michal


In This Thread

Prev Next