Re: LYNX-DEV Lynx 2.7.1ac-0.74 and LYUnEscapeEntities problem under digital UNIX

[T.E.Dickey]

> > following:
> > cc: Warning: ./HTAlert.c, line 53: In this statement, the referenced
> > type of the pointer value "Msg" is const, but the referenced type of
> > the target of this assignment is not.
> >         fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", Msg);
> > --------^
> 
> gcc doesn't warn, even with -Wcast-qual.  I'll put a fake (char *)
> cast back in..
> 
> (If you configure with --enable-warnings you should get more compiler
> warnings; but I don't know whether it does anything except for gcc.)
right - only gcc.  There's not much agreement between different compilers
for interesting warnings (but if someone sends in a diff for the special-case
stuff to add compiler warnings, I won't object ;-).

>     Str = (char *)calloc(1, len);
...
> (to get some more diagnostic output), and changing calloc(1, len) to
> calloc(len, 1) or to just malloc(len); and changing "int len;" at the
right - that one was backwards: the number of elements is first.

> beginning of LYUnEscapeEntities to "size_t len;".  These are just wild
> guesses, also lynx -trace may reveal something, or you'll have to compile
> with -g (configure --enable-debug should do it) and run under a
> debugger...
hmm: bear in mind that this is a 64-bit machine, and sizeof(unsigned)
is not the same as sizeof(size_t) -- or so I was informed.  There's
a lot of places where Lynx uses int's where unsigned values are appropriate,
which may also produce problems.
 
> > Secondly, while testing various options I also noticed that the 
> > configure-script doesn't seem to pick the ANSI C "-std1"-option  for 
> > the digital UNIX cc, it does suggest "-DCC_HAS_PROTOS" instead, altho 
> > I don't see even that define anywhere on the final makefile/lynx_cfg.h.
Besides being a placeholder for the shell script, the CC_HAS_PROTOS
definition is there in case I needed it to drive a macro that defines a
PARAMS macro - but Lynx already uses (incorrectly) the __STDC__ macro to
drive that (which wouldn't have worked properly on a number of compilers
that fortunately seem to be not in wide use any more).
> 
> Leaving this to Tom.
If it does build with -std1 for Digital Unix, I suppose it's ok to add.
(My recollection of OSF/1's compiler, though, is that Lynx probably wouldn't
build with -std1).


-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
address@hidden
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;