Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mingw32-gcc -O2 -c -o src/lfs.o -IC:\Program Files\Luarocks3.4.0 src/lfs.c src/lfs.c: In function 'push_link_target': src/lfs.c:1097:9: warning: implicit declaration of function 'memmove_s'; did you mean 'memmove'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] 1097 | memmove_s(target, tsize - 3, target + 4, tsize - 3); | ^~~~~~~~~ | memmove #144

Open
fujisheng opened this issue Dec 7, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@fujisheng
Copy link

mingw32-gcc -O2 -c -o src/lfs.o -IC:\Program Files\Luarocks3.4.0 src/lfs.c
src/lfs.c: In function 'push_link_target':
src/lfs.c:1097:9: warning: implicit declaration of function 'memmove_s'; did you mean 'memmove'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
1097 | memmove_s(target, tsize - 3, target + 4, tsize - 3);
| ^~~~~~~~~
| memmove

@FractalU
Copy link
Contributor

FractalU commented Oct 29, 2024

This report is about a warning at line 1097 in which memmove_s is being used. Apparentlly, mingw gcc doesn't recognize that memmove_s is a part of the standard Windows API.

@hishamhm You've already fixed this issue by the commit e4eae33. There, you've replaced memmove_s with the regular memmove, making the warning above go away.

@hishamhm
Copy link
Member

hishamhm commented Nov 6, 2024

@FractalU thanks for the heads up! About time for a new release, I guess?

@FractalU
Copy link
Contributor

FractalU commented Nov 6, 2024

thanks for the heads up! About time for a new release, I guess?

I'm not sure about a new release right now. There is still stuff in the pull request. So far since 1.8.0 the changes are more about maintenance such as changing rockspec, fixing git repo URL,, fixing compiler warnings and similar small fixes. So far, I only pointed out that this issue has already been fixed so it can be closed.

@FractalU
Copy link
Contributor

FractalU commented Nov 7, 2024

@hishamhm Actually, I changed my mind. Having a release such as 1.8.0-2 or 1.8.1-1 is in my opinion quite beneficial. The release only includes all these small fixes. The functionality stays exactly the same. Almost all the PRs add some functionality.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants