gnucash master: Multiple changes pushed

[Geert Janssens]

On Friday 04 July 2014 03:03:27 jralls at ceridwen.us wrote:
> > 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.
<snip>
> 
> 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.
> 
With that you just did the analysis I was suggesting. I think you are right that in this case 
the warning is just too cautious and not useful in our code.

So I have chosen to disable it (on condition the current compiler understands it) as you 
proposed.

The maint backporting still needs to be done though.

Geert