On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, David Holland wrote:
I think we should make no changes to appease the compiler in
this case. [...]
I would lean towards fixing the ones that can be fixed
noninvasively; [...]
The compiler is being really stupid, and I don't like making
invasive changes to appease it.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 08:07:11AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
If it helped, then it would also be fine to change
const char * format = %s;
to
const char * const format = %s;
but it doesn't help.
but:
const char format[] =%s;
works just fine.
Martin
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, David Holland wrote:
I think we should make no changes to appease the compiler in
this case. [...]
I would lean towards fixing the ones that can be fixed
noninvasively; [...]
The compiler is being really stupid, and I don't like making
invasive changes to
In article 20110818142524.ga26...@britannica.bec.de,
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:47:19AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
In article 20110817212805.gb16...@britannica.bec.de,
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
Could you please stop
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:55:20AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Every project I know off makes changes locally first and then pushes
them upstream. It is not practical to wait for upstream to be fixed
first, specially in cases of security
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
As long as I remember, we've had a strict policy of submitting changes
upstream where possible, but of _not_ gating fixes on this process --
particularly fixes which are security or correctness related (the latter
includes fixes without
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
As long as I remember, we've had a strict policy of submitting changes
upstream where possible, but of _not_ gating fixes on this process --
particularly fixes which are security or
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:57:53AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
And the project has a long history of making sure all (these days: most)
code in the base distribution builds with -Wall -Werror. This isn't
because every GCC warning is right, of course -- it's because when you
turn off warnings for a
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de writes:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:57:53AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
And the project has a long history of making sure all (these days: most)
code in the base distribution builds with -Wall -Werror. This isn't
because every GCC warning is right, of
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:54:28PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
When have you last checked the number of -Wno-* instances in base?
Sorry, but pessimizing code to work around clearly bogus GCC warnings is
not helpful. It doesn't make code easier to read, it doesn't improve
code quality.
10 matches
Mail list logo
