[kaffe] warning hunt

[Dalibor Topic]

Nektarios K. Papadopoulos wrote:
> 
> 
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
> 
>>> Should I send :
>>> - one diff per file ?
>>> - one diff per dir ?
>>> - one global diff ?
>>
>>
>>
>> One diff per type would be nice, otherwise, a global diff would do.
>>
> 
> Well, here it goes:
> 
> fix_traditional-2.diff fixes
>     traditional-2 warnings in 32 files
> fix_unused_param.diff
>     fixes unused-parameter warnings in 11 files
> fix_trad2_unused_mix.diff
>        fixes both types of warnings in 7 files
> 
> [1] unused-parameter warnings were handled by adding the UNUSED macro to
> the offending parameter, is that ok?

yes

> Some such warnings still remain because the offending parameters are
> actually used in an ifdef-out section.
> 
> [2] traditional-2 warnings were handled differently in different cases.
>     (a) I just cast the argument appropriately, when there is a reason to
> be declared of that type, but it has already been checked.
>     (b) As in (a) only that I added the checks.
>     (c) I changed the types involved to a more reasonable one
>     (as Dalibor suggested)
> 
> There are some situations where I am not sure whether I should check for
> proper values or what exactly to do if an error occur. In general I
> tried to act as the rest of the code acts in each file. But since I am
> new to kaffe and hunted a lot of warning the last days, some things
> might have been done *not*quite*properly*. So I wish that some of the
> kaffe gurus have a quick second look at the code before committing.

I've looked over it and it seems okay to me, as well as all regression 
tests still pass so I'm quite confident that the changes are ok :)

> I also remind you that I only check my changes against my own 
> configuration.

I've tried it out on my configuratio, too, and compared the warnings 
before and after the patch. Looks good to me, so I checked it in. Thanks 
a lot, and keep up the good work!

cheers,
dalibor topic