From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#51296: [PATCH] Add WebP format support Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 09:16:04 +0300 Message-ID: <83wnm57fff.fsf@gnu.org> References: <837de7bzy0.fsf@gnu.org> <83y26nac3e.fsf@gnu.org> <8335ouaixr.fsf@gnu.org> <838rym8bno.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10349"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 51296@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Kangas Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 22 08:17:29 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnrt-0002TL-3a for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 08:17:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51210 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnrr-0004xt-2Z for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:17:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50226) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnrT-0004w1-1l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:17:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47609) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnrS-0007ZB-P6 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:17:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnrS-0003Yc-FH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:17:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 06:17:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 51296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 51296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B51296.163488340913636 (code B ref 51296); Fri, 22 Oct 2021 06:17:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 51296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2021 06:16:49 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59153 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnr0-0003XW-2Q for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:16:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52840) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnqu-0003X7-07 for 51296@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:16:33 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35558) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnqo-0007MM-Jk; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:16:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2538 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mdnqk-0007Hl-8M; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 02:16:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Kangas on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:19:26 -0700) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:217848 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Kangas > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:19:26 -0700 > Cc: 51296@debbugs.gnu.org > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > And if you use SDATA instead of SSDATA? > > Yes, that fixed it. I guess SSDATA is there specifically to avoid > casting warnings, but in this case only produced one... Yes. The original macro was SDATA, and we added SSDATA later, when GCC started emitting these annoying warnings. > > Otherwise, I think this is good to go, thanks. > > Great! If it's fine by you, I will push this to master tomorrow (or the > day after) at a time when you are typically online, just in case there > is any fallout on MS-Windows. Please go ahead, and thanks.