Chris, You may want to arm wrestle Simon Wells for credit on the 0004-Dismiss-warning-for-inconsistent-exception-spec-in-K.patch. He submitted an almost identical patch[1] three days before you posted you patches.
While I'm indifferent about the "hiding overloaded virtual" method renaming, I don't see why the compiler is complaining about that given that the signatures are different. Seems like a trivial thing to worry about given any semi-skilled developer understands foo() and foo( const char* ) are not the same. C++ compiler developers must be running out of things to throw warnings about. :) Cheers, Wayne [1]:https://lists.launchpad.net/kicad-developers/msg26467.html On 9/30/2016 10:34 PM, Chris Pavlina wrote: > Timeout waiting for complaints, patches pushed ;) > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 02:07:20AM -0400, Chris Pavlina wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've attached some patches to quiet warnings. Additionally number 0002 >> may actually fix a genuine uninitialized access. Any objections to >> pushing these? >> >> -- >> Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
