From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New warnings on emacs-26 branch with gcc 8.2.0 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 22:10:15 +0300 Message-ID: <838t5clnxk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86a7q0ai2z.fsf@gmail.com> <6d36dc4c-1e14-b6c8-e2f0-911d08f759e1@cs.ucla.edu> <83in4os01j.fsf@gnu.org> <16f2754a-b40e-4bc4-f95a-9bada460d5a4@cs.ucla.edu> <83bma9mh3z.fsf@gnu.org> <86eff52njj.fsf@gmail.com> <83wosxkwfz.fsf@gnu.org> <864lg1rlp0.fsf@gmail.com> <83mutslt8f.fsf@gnu.org> <86in4gixg3.fsf@gmail.com> <83d0uolpxt.fsf@gnu.org> <86600giwct.fsf@gmail.com> <861sb4iv2d.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1534014528 3350 195.159.176.226 (11 Aug 2018 19:08:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 19:08:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Moreton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 11 21:08:44 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1foZFj-0000oj-Jw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 21:08:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32921 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1foZHp-0000SF-Uk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:10:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33874) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1foZHF-0000QB-3A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:10:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1foZHB-0004VN-RD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:10:16 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42227) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1foZHB-0004VF-Do; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:10:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1578 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1foZH9-0004E5-Db; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:10:12 -0400 In-reply-to: <861sb4iv2d.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Andy Moreton on Sat, 11 Aug 2018 20:04:26 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:228426 Archived-At: > From: Andy Moreton > Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 20:04:26 +0100 > > >> Or maybe we should introduce our ownj get_proc_address, which returns > >> a (void (*)(void)) pointer. But that's not for emacs-26, sorry. > > For the record, with get_proc_address like this: > > typedef void (*VOIDFNPTR)(void); > > VOIDFNPTR > get_proc_address (HINSTANCE handle, LPCSTR fname) > { > return (VOIDFNPTR) GetProcAddress (handle, fname); > } > > Then the following does not trigger the warning: > > s_pfn_Get_Module_HandleExA = > (GetModuleHandleExA_Proc) get_proc_address (hm_kernel32, > "GetModuleHandleExA"); Yes, that's what I had in mind, just with a comment explaining why we need to jump through that particular hoop. Thanks.