[Xcb] Patch for compiler warnings in util-image

[Bart Massey]

I'm not OK with accepting compiler warnings. I'm fine with either (a)
putting in the patches to make the code legal C89, or (b) turning on
the C99 flag for compilers that need it. If folks want to go with
option (b), you probably don't want me messing with the autotooling,
though. :-)  --Bart

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Alan Coopersmith
<alan.coopersmith at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 08/21/13 11:55 PM, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Bart Massey <bart at cs.pdx.edu> writes:
>>
>>> This is fairly gratuitous, but, hey, compiler warnings. Could just
>>> commit it, but would appreciate a review first. --Bart
>>>
>>>  From c44f39f543e8f6978f1b81f81e3c9c3a10376c2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Bart Massey <bart at cs.pdx.edu>
>>> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:34:13 -0700
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Fixed compiler warnings about non-C90 mixing of
>>> definitions
>>>   and code.
>>
>>
>> This has already been discussed in the past:
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/2010-December/006697.html
>
>
> Note that in the past, OpenBSD required fixing these warnings since they
> still
> built with gcc 2.95 on some platforms.   They very recently completed
> migrating
> those platforms to gcc 3.4, and thus don't require these fixes any more, so
> it's
> now just down to projects code style guidelines whether to fix them or
> accept
> them.
>
> https://twitter.com/mherrb/status/365966572700971009
>
> --
>         -Alan Coopersmith-              alan.coopersmith at oracle.com
>          Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xcb mailing list
> Xcb at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xcb