> In your harsh replies to critics, obviously.Harsh replies automatically allocate me as Linus Torvalds, ok.
> And what I should get?
> $ cat tmp.c
> void (*casting_pointers())()
> {
> void *void_fn = (void*)casting_pointers;
> void (*fn)() = (void (*)()) void_fn;
> return fn;
> }
> $ gcc -Wall -c tmp.c
> $
Under MSVC, you'd get a warning saying you're casting a function pointer to a data pointer, which is why I disable this warning under MSVC only.
> I don't know what warnings of MSVC you are talking about, but
> assuming you are right with it and MSVC warnings are useless,
> you should use gcc -Wall and its warnings or some external
> static code analizer to check your code.
It's already implicility used...
>[оверквотинг удален]
> getting those warnings. Clean your code and either make an explicit
> cast of vcpu to struct list_head*, or change type of an
> arg in function declaration to reflect the type of field in
> struct ksm.
>> Also the incompatible pointer warning that was _only_ ignored for just 1 function...
> If it is true, than I understand your behaviour even less. Why
> you need to speak about MSVC and your hatred of compiler
> warnings, instead of clear explanation of the issue? One unresolved warning
> is not so bad as systematically ignored warnings. Acting such a
> way you are showing youself as ignorant fool.
You're the ignorant fool here for not bothering to look at the actual definitions before making these arguments, the vcpu_list is not a list_head, it's simply an array of `struct vcpu`, declared as follows:
struct vcpu vcpu_list[MAX_VCPUS];
So my point is still valid, you're (or the other guy) are arguing about ignoring the warnings while they are actually justified and are mostly substandard.
