On 02/09/16 01:18, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> I don't think we should enable -pedantic anywhere in the tree. Different
> versions of gcc are going to have different ideas of what pedantic is.
That's why I tested this on all the compilers at my direct disposal.
What about the changes in general,
I don't think we should enable -pedantic anywhere in the tree. Different
versions of gcc are going to have different ideas of what pedantic is.
I'm not sold on the value of all these patches to nvi when it is possibly
hindering people who may be looking to add utf-8 support (via nvi2 or
Jonathan Gray wrote:
> I don't think we should enable -pedantic anywhere in the tree.
> Different versions of gcc are going to have different ideas of what
> pedantic is.
This was my reaction too. I like the approach of keeping few to no
warnings in default builds. It's easy to "env
And of course you find out way to late that format=flowed was still on...
Here's a new diff.
Any OKs for this?
On 02/01/16 23:34, Martijn van Duren wrote:
> Hello tech@,
>
> This patch enables -pedantic and does the appropriate cleanup that comes
> with it. It's mostly a CHAR_T->char
Hello tech@,
This patch enables -pedantic and does the appropriate cleanup that comes
with it. It's mostly a CHAR_T->char conversion, which should be quite
harmless, but edge-cases can be missed.
I'd like to have multiple OKs for this one as well as testing on
multiple architectures, just
