2020-08-03 05:35:00 +02:00
|
|
|
#include "MakeAndPlay.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifndef MAKEANDPLAY
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-01-13 17:15:17 +01:00
|
|
|
#include <stdint.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Totally unimplemented right now! */
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explicitly declare void for all void parameter functions (#628)
Apparently in C, if you have `void test();`, it's completely okay to do
`test(2);`. The function will take in the argument, but just discard it
and throw it away. It's like a trash can, and a rude one at that. If you
declare it like `void test(void);`, this is prevented.
This is not a problem in C++ - doing `void test();` and `test(2);` is
guaranteed to result in a compile error (this also means that right now,
at least in all `.cpp` files, nobody is ever calling a void parameter
function with arguments and having their arguments be thrown away).
However, we may not be using C++ in the future, so I just want to lay
down the precedent that if a function takes in no arguments, you must
explicitly declare it as such.
I would've added `-Wstrict-prototypes`, but it produces an annoying
warning message saying it doesn't work in C++ mode if you're compiling
in C++ mode. So it can be added later.
2021-02-25 23:23:59 +01:00
|
|
|
int32_t GOG_init(void)
|
2020-01-13 17:15:17 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2021-09-07 03:56:39 +02:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
2020-01-13 17:15:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explicitly declare void for all void parameter functions (#628)
Apparently in C, if you have `void test();`, it's completely okay to do
`test(2);`. The function will take in the argument, but just discard it
and throw it away. It's like a trash can, and a rude one at that. If you
declare it like `void test(void);`, this is prevented.
This is not a problem in C++ - doing `void test();` and `test(2);` is
guaranteed to result in a compile error (this also means that right now,
at least in all `.cpp` files, nobody is ever calling a void parameter
function with arguments and having their arguments be thrown away).
However, we may not be using C++ in the future, so I just want to lay
down the precedent that if a function takes in no arguments, you must
explicitly declare it as such.
I would've added `-Wstrict-prototypes`, but it produces an annoying
warning message saying it doesn't work in C++ mode if you're compiling
in C++ mode. So it can be added later.
2021-02-25 23:23:59 +01:00
|
|
|
void GOG_shutdown(void)
|
2020-01-13 17:15:17 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explicitly declare void for all void parameter functions (#628)
Apparently in C, if you have `void test();`, it's completely okay to do
`test(2);`. The function will take in the argument, but just discard it
and throw it away. It's like a trash can, and a rude one at that. If you
declare it like `void test(void);`, this is prevented.
This is not a problem in C++ - doing `void test();` and `test(2);` is
guaranteed to result in a compile error (this also means that right now,
at least in all `.cpp` files, nobody is ever calling a void parameter
function with arguments and having their arguments be thrown away).
However, we may not be using C++ in the future, so I just want to lay
down the precedent that if a function takes in no arguments, you must
explicitly declare it as such.
I would've added `-Wstrict-prototypes`, but it produces an annoying
warning message saying it doesn't work in C++ mode if you're compiling
in C++ mode. So it can be added later.
2021-02-25 23:23:59 +01:00
|
|
|
void GOG_update(void)
|
2020-01-13 17:15:17 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void GOG_unlockAchievement(const char *name)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-08-03 05:35:00 +02:00
|
|
|
#endif /* MAKEANDPLAY */
|
