Re: a bunch of warnings

[sfeam (E. Merritt) <eam...@gm...>]

On Monday, 27 August 2012, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> > "../term/emf.trm", line 344: warning: initializer does not fit or is
> > out of range: -5
> >
> > EAM: This one is a true hit, however.
> >       It looks to me that a dozen or so of the declarations at the
> >       top of emf.trm are marked "unsigned" for no good reason.
> >       But why only complain about this one and not 10 others?
> 
> The others look to be set to valid unsigned numbers, e.g., 0, 1, FALSE, 
> TRUE, 0x2222, EMF_COLORS (which is 15), etc.  LT_UNDEFINED (which is -5) 
> is the only signed value.

The others are valid at initialization time, but still may be
assigned one of the flag values (e.g. LT_UNDEFINED) when the
code is run.  If you run "grep LT_ emf.trm" you'll see many such cases.
Since LT_UNDEFINED is known at compile time, I'm surprised that
the compiler doesn't also complain about these other assignments.

Anyhow, I've applied the trivial fixes to datafile.c emf.trm hpgl.trm

The assignment of octal values to a (char) is not an error no matter
what the signedness of (char), so that set of warnings is spurious and
I won't change the code in gplt_x11.c or elsewhere.

> # ifndef TT2$M_DECCRT3          /* VT300 not defined as of VAXC v2.4 */
> or is it the $ is not a valid character 
The $ is valid (and very common) in VAX/VMS identifiers.
This whole section of code is inside #ifdef VMS so non-VAX compilers
should not even be looking at it.