Re: Gee Removing warnings for libgee

[Maciej Piechotka <uzytkownik2 gmail com>]

On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 05:14 -0600, Daniel Espinosa wrote:
> I have pushed some commits to 0.8 branch, in order to remove most of
> warnings.

Thanks, but 0.8 branch is no longer maintained. Current stable release
is 0.12 and possibly 0.10 would get the backports of fixes. 

> This is a work in progress and try to help Gee to remove most build
> warnings, while tries to keep C API unchanged.

Thanks. I believe many of the warnings might got fixed in newer releases
- possibly including ones you fixed (see for example commit cbc209 or
ff6b2d).

In general _PLEASE_ submit the patch through bugzilla, ML or
Jürg/Didier/me instead of commiting right away.

For example the Context are unused for PURPOSE (I don't have time to
check it ATM but I believe it might even crash the tests now or run the
'GC' much more frequently).

> I'm trying to remove warnings about delegate copying, but seems I need
> to change some functions properties to unowned, but again I don't want
> to change C API.

The best way would be to have GClosure support in Vala. Second best
would be to emulate it by creating a refcounted private class to keep
the delegate and copy the reference to it. 

I belive I have started it somewhere but fix for it keeps being pushed
away (real life constrains).

> Does Gee needs to add gee.h to repository in order to track C chages
> and keep 0.8 and other stable branches with no changes?

No. gee.h is autogenerated. Unfortunately 

> Does Gee needs to force to use one version of Vala in order to Keep C
> API unchanged?

Yes. Not only we guarantee the C API stability but also ABI stability.
It's even easier to break the latter without noticing.

> I found lot of warnings at build time I'll try to remove carefully
> with out change C API.

I'm trying to remove as many warnings as possible but sometimes the
problem is in warning itself not the code (much, much more critical
example of cleaning warnings[1]). Also it would be preferable to remove
code the comment it out (it's fine - it's in vcs so it's possible to
revert).

> Any comment recommendation?

Maciej

[1]
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-openssl/openssl/trunk/rand/md_rand.c?p2=%2Fopenssl%2Ftrunk%2Frand%2Fmd_rand.c&p1=openssl%2Ftrunk%2Frand%2Fmd_rand.c&r1=141&r2=140&view=diff&pathrev=141