gnucash master: Multiple changes pushed

[jralls at ceridwen.us]

> On July 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> wrote:
> 
>  On Thursday 03 July 2014 20:07:46 John Ralls wrote:
>  > On Jul 3, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be>
>  > wrote:
>  > > Same issue but this time it may need some more careful testing.
>  > > TXN_TYPE_NONE may be used in other locations where '\0' is assumed
>  > > instead of NULL (guile comes to mind). I don't have time to go
>  > > deeper into this right now so I'll just revert back to gcc for the
>  > > time being.
>  > >
>  > > John, you don't *have* to fix this while you're on holidays :).
>  > > There is an easy alternative and you can revisit it later if you
>  > > like.
>  > >
>  > > Oh, just a side question: do we want maint to be buildable with
>  > > clang as well ? If so we may need to backport (cherry-pick) the
>  > > current round of fixes.
>  > Maybe you should just add -Wno-non-literal-null-conversion to CFLAGS.
>  > Copy the code I wrote yesterday for -Wno-deprecated-register without
>  > the AC_LANG([C++]) block.
>  >
>  I could do that but prefer not to until we know for sure the warning is
> irrelevant. I can imagine clang doesn't throw this warning just for fun.
> Perhaps what we did was generally accepted before but is now considered risky
> ? I don't know. If we can avoid the warnings by small code modifications I'd
> prefer that approach.
> 
>  > I hadn't thought about maint. Up to now everything has been related to
>  > C++, which doesn't apply to maint. Let's try to remember to look at
>  > that again in August when we're both back from holiday. I'll need to
>  > get serious about OSX 10.10 testing then, too, and it has a more
>  > current version of Clang than I've been using so more of these issues
>  > might apply there as well.
>  >
>  Ok, I'll mark this as a TODO in my mailbox.
> 

That's one way of looking at it, though there have been complaints that Clang
enforces a particular coding style via somewhat bogus errors and warnings. In C
0, '\0', FALSE, and NULL are just different ways of saying the same thing; in
C++11 we should say nullptr when we mean a null pointer, but for C code I think
it's an unnecessary exercise to go through the code to make sure we always use
NULL.

Regards,
John Ralls