Hi Stefaan, * Stefaan wrote on Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:16:33AM CEST: > > I don't know how bad you want compiler warnings fixed,
Only if a clean fix is possible, fixes it on all kinds of compilers while not introducing new warnings (or failures! Yes, I've managed to do that once!) on others, and rather not for branch-1-5. Of course, warnings that show actual bugs are a different matter altogether. > but since > packages seem to copy this source file I'm inclined to report it: (I > bumped into this trying to eliminate warnings out of "kaffe") > > ltdl/ltdl.c contains a function strrchr with declaration (line 346) > static const char *strrchr LT_PARAMS((const char *str, int ch)); > > of which the result is then afterwards at more then one occasion used > for a "char *" variable. At line 2757 there even is an explicit > assignment to the resulting char. (All line numbers are for latest > CVS) You mean branch-1-5, right? > Personally, I think the function declaration and definition can just > be changed to used "char *" instead of "const char *". Surely. Then you'll have the warning within the strrchr replacement implementation. SUSv3 specifies it with "char *" as you suggest. It is virtually impossible to write nontrivial system-dependent code without warnings. Whether, in a case of a tie (either compiler X or compiler Y warns), we should go for the most-used compiler and system, might be a worthwhile question just to keep the number of bug reports lower. Other than that, I don't care much myself. Cheers, and thanks for reporting, Ralf _______________________________________________ Bug-libtool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool
