Horst von Brand wrote: >Nikita Danilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >It is supposed to go into the kernel, which is not exactly warning-free. > > While I have no passionate feelings about Nikita's ifdef, I must note that Reiser4 will always be warning free within 3 days of my finding out that somebody left a warning in.;-)
I hate messy code.;-) The rest of the kernel should be fixed to be warning free. >Besides, you don't know what idiotic new warnings the gcc people might >dream up the next round, so just relying on no warnings is extremely >unwise. > > I find the above unconvincing. Is that what this thread boils down to, that you guys think the compile should fail not warn? >As was said before: It it is /really/ wrong, arrange for it not to compile >or not to link. If it isn't, well... then it wasn't that wrong anyway. > >
