[Ns-developers] build fixes for gcc 4.0.1

[Mathieu Lacage]

hi,

The following patch-sets fix the -Wall -Werror build with gcc 4.0.1.
some are just annoying warnings. Others are obviously bugs (mostly patch
9). I tested the warning-free nature with -g -O0. I am working on the
warnings with -O3 but that is taking some time because the fixes are
getting really tricky.

I) ns2 stuff
------------

patch 8 fixes the "virtual class without virtual destructor" warning in
a lot of classes. This warning is not very dangerous in ns-2 since ns-2
never performs the destruction of the simulation network but I have yet
to meet a programmer who can justify not declaring and implementing a
virtual destructor in a class which has virtual methods :) 
http://www-sop.inria.fr/dream/personnel/Mathieu.Lacage/ns2/ns-build-warning-8.patch

patch 9 fixes some very nasty errors with regard to the order of
evaluation of sub-expressions in expressions. In certain cases, the
result of the evaluation was obviously not what was intended and was
undefined per the C++ standard (which means, at best, weird results). 
http://www-sop.inria.fr/dream/personnel/Mathieu.Lacage/ns2/ns-build-warning-9.patch

patch 10 contains a bunch of various fixes for signed/unsigned
confusion, some wrong arguments to printf (typically, %ld requires a
long int argument and not an int) and various other less serious
things. 
http://www-sop.inria.fr/dream/personnel/Mathieu.Lacage/ns2/ns-build-warning-10.patch

patch 11 contains a single fix for a segfault I noticed while running
the validation teste suite after applying my patches. I have no idea why
the segfault started happening after my patches and not before but it is
indeed pretty ugly. 
http://www-sop.inria.fr/dream/personnel/Mathieu.Lacage/ns2/ns-build-warning-11.patch

Of course, I ran the validation test suite and everything validates ok.

II) tclcl stuff
---------------

patch 0 contains the single bug fix needed to compile ns-2. This patch
is against a header which is installed by tclcl and used by ns-2. 
http://www-sop.inria.fr/dream/personnel/Mathieu.Lacage/ns2/tclcl-build-warnings-0.patch

After getting ns-2 to compile with gcc-4.0.1, I thought I should fix
tclcl. To do this, I had to hack the autoconf stuff because it was
obviously broken and was not recognizing my system configuration and
thus was generating very weird compilation errors. 

patch 1 contains a few fixes against the m4 code from the conf directory
to be able to use them with a recent autoconf. I have no idea where the
original version of these files comes from: these patches should be
propagated to the canonical location of the files. For example, there is
a copy of the files in ns-2 and my patch could be applied to them too.
Of course, I noticed that the two versions of the files are different
(that is, the ns-2 version was updated without updating the tclcl
version) but I expected it (sharing code by keeping separate copies of
the same files always end-up in diverging codebases). 
http://www-sop.inria.fr/dream/personnel/Mathieu.Lacage/ns2/tclcl-build-warnings-1.patch

patch 2 contains fixes to:
  - generate the config.h file from the config.h.in file.
  - use the config.h file from various places in the code where it was
needed. 
http://www-sop.inria.fr/dream/personnel/Mathieu.Lacage/ns2/tclcl-build-warnings-2.patch

After applying these 3 patches, you need to:
  - run autoheader to re-generate a proper config.h.in file (since this
file is automatically generated, it should not be added to the cvs
repository but should be included in the released tarballs)
  - run autoconf to re-generate the configure script from configure.in.

Running configure now generates the config.h file from the config.h.in
file and from the result of the configuration. A look at config.h will
convince you that it indeed, contains all the definitions for the
configured items.

Should I forward these patches to a tclcl mailing-list ?

regards,
Mathieu
--