|
|
On 2/24/21 7:45 AM Manolo wrote:
On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:50:52 PM UTC+1 Albrecht Schlosser
wrote:
So after all I think both options (1: extra implementation file) and
(2:
see patch) are fine and I'm undecided.
Votes, anybody?
Options 1 and 2 were defined as follows :
> (1) Enable the warning (pragma) in Fl_SVG_Image.cxx just before we
> include the nanosvg headers and (maybe [1]) disable it afterwards.
>
> (2) Use a new file just for the nanosvg implementation (maybe
> fl_nanosvg.cxx?) and use the #pragma before the inclusion of nanosvg
> headers (no restore needed [1]).
Therefore I'm a little confused when I read
"option[s] (1: extra implementation file) "
Sorry, I mixed that up. It's as you cited above.
My vote would be for
"Enable the warning (pragma) in Fl_SVG_Image.cxx and disable it afterwards"
with the advantage of not introducing a new file with very little added
value.
Yes, that's my vote now too.
But, is it possible that some older versions of Visual Studio don't support
#pragma warning (push) / #pragma warning (pop)
In that case, option
"Use a new file just for the nanosvg implementation"
would be my choice.
Good question, I don't know. I can test VS 2008 (my oldest version) but
I think Greg has still much older versions available.
Greg, could you (or anybody else, of course) please test on your oldest
VS version and report back? Or does anybody know?
The patch can be found here (attached file nanosvg-warnings.diff):
https://groups.google.com/g/fltkcoredev/c/UB1E09RUguk/m/zbZbzVr_AQAJ
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "fltk.coredev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fltkcoredev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fltkcoredev/fe5ccc5f-57ec-f188-b97d-1d70a1ac28d2%40online.de.
[ Direct Link to Message ] | |
|
| |