Closed
Bug 443454
Opened 16 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
Large number of warnings when building with ARM RVCT
Categories
(Tamarin Graveyard :: Tracing Virtual Machine, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: rob.borcic, Assigned: rob.borcic)
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
2.86 KB,
patch
|
stejohns
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Using the ARM RVCT 2.2 compiler to build TT for Symbian, there are several hundred warning messages. This bug will be used to track changes that reduce the warnings to a more manageable number.
Comment 1•16 years ago
|
||
The more manageable number should be exactly zero -- and once we get it there, let's convert warnings to errors so they don't crop up.
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•16 years ago
|
||
Example of warning: Warning: #830-D: function "MMgc::GCWeakRef::operator new" has no corresponding operator delete (to be called if an exception is thrown during initialization of an allocated object) This patch adds an empty matching delete operator for FastAllocator, GCObject, GCFinalizedObject, GCFinalizedObjectOptIn, RCObject and GCWeakRef. The extra code is only included if REQUIRE_DELETE_OPERATOR is defined and this flag is currently only defined for Symbian.
Assignee | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Attachment #328004 -
Attachment is patch: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Attachment #328004 -
Flags: review?(stejohns)
Updated•16 years ago
|
Attachment #328004 -
Flags: review?(stejohns) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•16 years ago
|
||
The previous patch was included as part of changeset 492:307fb716348c. This patch further reduces instances of warning #830-D as well as eliminating instances of Warning: #1165-D: types cannot be declared in anonymous unions.
Attachment #328004 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #329531 -
Flags: review?(stejohns)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•16 years ago
|
||
The previous patch was missing a change. Sorry about that.
Attachment #329531 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #329532 -
Flags: review?(stejohns)
Attachment #329531 -
Flags: review?(stejohns)
Updated•16 years ago
|
Attachment #329532 -
Flags: review?(stejohns) → review+
Comment 5•16 years ago
|
||
what is the overhead of the delete operators on compilers that don't require them? put another way what's the cost of making them not-ifdefd?
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•16 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5) It would depend on the compiler. At best, the compiler would exclude the operator and there would be no overhead. At worst, there would be a small amount of extra code and an extra function call.
Comment 7•16 years ago
|
||
pushed as changeset: 514:ecd15452554d
Comment 8•16 years ago
|
||
are there more patches coming? else lets mark FIXED
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Updated•15 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•