Sean O'Malley wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > >> I don't see a definition of rxi_getAllAddrMaskMtu within >> src/utils/netutils.c. >> >> The return value is the number of addresses so it could be a uint. >> > You are right. I created one to eliminate compiler warnings.
Why are you creating a second instance of the function in order to eliminate compiler warnings? Simply fix the variable that is receiving the return value. > I was just wondering why there are two different proto's for the same > function name but use different types of ints and whether they can be > combined without breaking anything and uints to -me- make the most sense, > but the rx stuff might have errors coming back as negative numbers and > need signed ints. Are you sure that there are two prototypes? Can you point them out? I suspect the real problem is that there are no prototypes for the function. > Should I really be doing this on the 1.5.x source instead of the 1.4.2 > source so we can fold these in? It really annoys me to see 5k warning > messages when compiling source. I know some of those I won't eliminate but > implicit function defs and other warnings can be fairly easily eliminated > without breaking much. There are other changes related to the different > libraries solaris has.. Changes should be made against the cvs head. > This change -could- break a few things though, thus the question.. :) Please try not submitting changes that break things. You will make the gatekeepers very grumpy and we will be less likely to accept the patch. Jeffrey Altman _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
