Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475410 --- Comment #8 from Jerry James <[email protected]> 2008-12-16 16:16:08 EDT --- Wasn't -DFAST in your original .spec file? Anyway, there are some macros that expand to error-checking code unless you specify -DFAST, in which case they expand to nothing. So it's your call, really: do you want error-checking code compiled in, or do you want to live dangerously but have the code run faster? As for the warnings, you're absolutely right. Some of the printf format warnings look like they indicate incorrect printing problems on 64-bit platforms. The dynamic + static library approach looks good. Sorry I didn't finish the review yesterday like I said I would. I had a complete network failure before your new SRPM finished downloading, possibly due to a winter storm that just went through here. The network's back up at last, and I have the SRPM, so *now* I will do the full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
