[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Want to help? Here's something....

From: Tom Rondeau
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Want to help? Here's something....
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:00:27 -0400

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Philip Balister <address@hidden> wrote:
On 10/03/2011 11:32 AM, Tom Rondeau wrote:
Hello everyone,
Here's a general call for help on the GNU Radio project if you are so
inclined. If you've wanted to contribute back to the code, but weren't sure
how to make a difference, there are lots of little things to look at. We've
set up a Jenkins continuous integration server that keeps track of the code
issues, including enumerating all "TODO" and "FIXME" comments through the
source code. It also tests and graphs the test code we've put in there. You
can see these results here:


What we want to see is the red and yellow graph lines going down and the
blue lines going up. The blue graph is the number of QA tests run. Any more
QA tests for a) blocks that do not currently have any QA code or b) more
corner cases for blocks already being tested would be most welcome.

The red and yellow lines mostly represent compiler warnings and TODO/FIXMEs.
Many of these might be very quickly resolvable with a few lines changed.
Some of them are probably more complex to know what the right answer is, so
if you have some ideas, start a thread on the mailing list to discuss what
the right fix might be.

I am looking at the warnings in audio_alsa_sink.cc, but I do not see them output on the console when I do compiles. Any ideas? I believe I see why they occur and how to fix them, just trying to make sure the warnings are really there. Is libtool screwing us over?


I'm only seeing a FIXME as a way of avoiding the generation of a compiler warning. So I don't think you would see this when compiling. It looks like the question is what's the right way to set these and use them? It comes from this:

  snd_pcm_access_mask_t *access_mask;
  snd_pcm_access_mask_t **access_mask_ptr = &access_mask; // FIXME: workaround for compiler warning

I think the question is, is this level of indirection the right thing to do?

Let me know if you were talking about something else that I've missed.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]