What about these three warnings do you think is a concern?
Have you actually looked at the code in question to see
if the possibility of data loss is real and unintentional?
What makes you think that these warnings are not just a case
of the compiler blowing smoke?
--
D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I may be a bit late in the discussion but...
Personally I like to use the compilers highest level of warnings - and
use "warnings as errors" where possible. If I'm feeling really
enthusiastic then I may run Lint over the code. These tools, lint and
compiler warnings, are there to help us.
Let's assume one warning is a valid one. It's a new one in code someone
wrote just recently. It's a warning that is now lost in the noise of the
"blowing smoke" warnings. You'll never know because you have tuned the
compilers warnings out as simply "blowing smoke". You won't see it until
an obscure bug shows it's face...and even when staring at it you won't
see it because you don't consider these warnings as errors.
Personally I consider an alarm and "alarm" and work to fix them all.
Sometimes with compiler options (pragmas in MS compiler), sometimes with
lint comments, but mostly by fixing them **right at the time of writing
the code in the first place**.
It saddens me when I use someone else's code at warning level 3 and
warnings as mere warnings as there is the implication that the code has
not had that last few ounces of effort put into it.
russ.