Fix pedantic compiler warnings

[PJK]

And improve overall macro and code hygiene

Fixes #160

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #161 into master will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 98.06%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #161      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.64%   92.71%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          52       52              
  Lines        3452     3458       +6     
  Branches      199      199              
==========================================
+ Hits         3198     3206       +8     
  Misses        198      198              
+ Partials       56       54       -2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
examples/create_items.c	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
examples/hello.c	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
examples/sort.c	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
examples/streaming_parser.c	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/cbor/callbacks.c	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/cbor/internal/builder_callbacks.c	90.08% <100.00%> (ø)
test/bad_inputs_test.c	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
test/callbacks_test.c	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
test/cbor_serialize_test.c	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
test/cbor_stream_decode_test.c	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 23 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 06e6221...d644118. Read the comment docs.

[mu578]

hello thank you,

however, I'd go by:

#	if defined(__GNUC__)
#		define _CBOR_UNUSED_ATTR(x) __attribute__((__unused__)) x
#		define _CBOR_UNUSED         _CBOR_UNUSED_ATTR
#	elif defined(_MSC_VER)
#		define _CBOR_UNUSED_ATTR(x) __pragma(warning(suppress: 4100 4101)) x
#		define _CBOR_UNUSED         _CBOR_UNUSED_ATTR
#	else
#		define _CBOR_UNUSED_ATTR(x) x
#		define _CBOR_UNUSED(x)      (void)x
#	endif

BTW, did you start looking at date/times TAG introduction? as per draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-04

[PJK]

Sent #165 to address MSVC. The last fallback will not work when applied to parameters.

BTW, did you start looking at date/times TAG introduction? as per draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-04

No, the tag registry hasn't been addressed at all. Filed #166, feel free to propose something.

[mu578]

Hello, that's the reason I'd differentiate attribute vs scope tagging using two macros; in general, body/scope tagging is preferable to function arguments tagging for the sake of portability and readability. #165

For cbor datetime TAG proposal looks like to be a "root one" not a sub-control value as per draft, split in two kinds; (I might be wrong); so could draft-code the logic using an arbitrary unused TAG value. although, RFC3339 parser/check routine needed. #166

[mu578]

file.diff.txt

forgot one initializer ; not in file diff

struct _cbor_string_metadata {
  size_t length;
  size_t codepoint_count; /* Sum of chunks' codepoint_counts for indefinite
                             strings */
  _cbor_dst_metadata type;
};

.metadata = {.string_metadata = {0, 0, _CBOR_METADATA_DEFINITE}}};