From: <ki...@ba...> - 2007-12-30 23:25:57
|
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote: > On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 05:40:29PM -0600, ki...@ba... wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Marcus Meissner wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 04:36:52PM -0600, ki...@ba... wrote: >>>> >> >> [...] >> >>>> I will continue looking at these and may make some more suggestions. >>> >>> I fixed exif.c/exif.h/gphoto2-file.c/gphoto2-filesys.c (and jpeg.c). >>> >>> I do not see the warning in gphoto2-abilities-list.c with current GCC 4.3. >>> The newer compiler might have become more inteligent. :) >>> >>> Ciao, Marcus >>> >> >> I will try out what you did right away, as it does seem already to be >> posted. >> >> But I am still curious about something (see the message I just sent). >> >> What is intended with GP_FILE_ACCESSTYPE_MEMORY anyway? >> >> Does anyone actually use this? > > Yes. > > If the frontend does: > gp_file_new() it allocates such a file. > gp_file_new_from_fd(int fd) allocates one with GP_FILE_ACCESSTYPE_FILE > > > The name GP_FILE_ACCESSTYPE_MEMORY is not exposed outside of the > file itself. > >> Does anyone foresee a use for it? > > I added it to be used. :) > > Ciao, Marcus > Thanks again. I have now done make 2>makedebug3 and I still get jpeg.c: In function 'gpi_jpeg_chunk_new': jpeg.c:66: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness jpeg.c: In function 'gpi_jpeg_write': jpeg.c:371: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'gp_file_append' differ in signedness I am running gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 right now; that might be the source of the problem. At this point, I have also done "make install" and have tested by hooking up one camera and have downloaded one photo without mishap. To the extent that this quickie test is a test of anything very much, everything seems to be doing just fine. I didn't try a frontend, though. Wishing for all of us a prosperous and peaceful year 2008 Theodore Kilgore |