Fix a bunch of compiler warnings and remove suppressions.

[iphydf]

This change is 

[sudden6]

Reviewed 47 of 50 files at r1.
Review status: 47 of 50 files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions.

---

toxcore/crypto_core.c, line 222 at r1 (raw file):

static uint32_t host_to_network(uint32_t x)
{
#if !defined(BYTE_ORDER) || BYTE_ORDER == LITTLE_ENDIAN

I don't think it's a good idea to silently assume a byte order., #error when BYTE_ORDER is undefined would be better.

---

toxcore/DHT.c, line 1087 at r1 (raw file):

    }

    {

why the extra block? I thought C99 supports variable declarations everywhere?

---

Comments from Reviewable

[iphydf]

Review status: 47 of 50 files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions.

---

toxcore/crypto_core.c, line 222 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, sudden6 wrote…

I don't think it's a good idea to silently assume a byte order., #error when BYTE_ORDER is undefined would be better.

I agree, but that's what we do today. BYTE_ORDER is in fact not defined. This code will go away soon anyway, so I'd rather not spend much time on it.

---

toxcore/DHT.c, line 1087 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, sudden6 wrote…

why the extra block? I thought C99 supports variable declarations everywhere?

1. index is redefined (-Wshadow) below.
2. The block reduces the scope of these variables, helping readability. The block could probably be its own function, but I'm avoiding moving refactorings while we have a large change pending merge (ingvar's ngc changes).

---

Comments from Reviewable

[sudden6]

---

Reviewed 3 of 50 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions.

---

toxcore/crypto_core.c, line 222 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, iphydf wrote…

I agree, but that's what we do today. BYTE_ORDER is in fact not defined. This code will go away soon anyway, so I'd rather not spend much time on it.

ok, hope it really goes away soon.

---

toxcore/DHT.c, line 1087 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, iphydf wrote…

1. index is redefined (-Wshadow) below.
2. The block reduces the scope of these variables, helping readability. The block could probably be its own function, but I'm avoiding moving refactorings while we have a large change pending merge (ingvar's ngc changes).

ok, didn't see the shadowing

---

Comments from Reviewable