|
From: Carl E. L. <ce...@us...> - 2015-04-22 20:22:25
|
On Sun, 2015-04-19 at 07:57 -0700, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Florian Krohm <fl...@ei...> wrote: > > > > What you describe would work but require additional configury. And that > > is something I would like to avoid. We already have 3000 lines of it. > > If will be less work to simply modify the test to not pass these values > > as function arguments. > > Assuming that is possible, I agree. Although even that demands > cluttering the source with a long comment if the needed approach is > unnatural. > > When it is impossible or inconvenient to modify the source, the > approach I have seen is to place all such warning suppressions in one > header file. And then dispatch on the compiler version in that header > (not in the configure script). Something like > <http://stackoverflow.com/a/18463996/768469>. > > This approach keeps the source uncluttered, and it adds little to the > testing burden since (a) it is simple enough to get right every time > and (b) these are just warning suppressions. > > This is part of the cost of keeping everything "-Wall clean" across > multiple platforms. But it is not a large cost compared to the > benefits. > > - Pat > The 128-bit function arguments are passed by value. By changing the arguments to pointers we can pass them by reference and thus avoid the compiler issue. The change is simple and doesn't impact the readability of the code. I put in a comment about why it is being passed by reference. I have changed a number of the function calls so far and it seems to take care of the issue. Just working on finishing up the rest. This source code change will fix the issue. Carl Love |