On 14/11/13 13:25, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday, 2013-11-14 11:25:32 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
>
>> better to use "#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored" which does not have bad
>> side effects.
>
> So actually the old advice to create a wrapper header for the reason to
> disable warnings
Hi,
On Thursday, 2013-11-14 11:25:32 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
> better to use "#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored" which does not have bad
> side effects.
So actually the old advice to create a wrapper header for the reason to
disable warnings for an included header is legacy and moot.
I assume
On 14/11/13 12:00, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 11:25 AM, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> ... because it not only disables warnings, it also prevents generating
>> Makefile dependencies for the file, and that is what caused everybody's
>> build to break after yesterday's ICU upgrade.
>
> Is tha
On 11/14/2013 11:25 AM, Michael Stahl wrote:
... because it not only disables warnings, it also prevents generating
Makefile dependencies for the file, and that is what caused everybody's
build to break after yesterday's ICU upgrade.
Is that only relevant in "our own" files, or also in header f
... because it not only disables warnings, it also prevents generating
Makefile dependencies for the file, and that is what caused everybody's
build to break after yesterday's ICU upgrade.
better to use "#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored" which does not have bad
side effects.
if your build currentl
