> > Otherwise people might fall into a habit > > of ignoring warnings [that may point to actual problems]. > > People might fall into the habit of ignoring a warning from an > extension to C provided by a single compiler? > > I doubt it. Doubt away. I find it more than obvious that telling people to ignore some warnings will make them more likely to also ignore and underestimate other warnings. Provided they even notice the serious warnings in a stream of harmless warnings. Whatever.
> There is no point in silencing the warning, since the warning is > from an extension to C which is bullshit. What extension of C are you talking about? > > (*) looking at POSIX, snprintf is not required to return -1, > > but only "a negative value". So it's not truly safe either way. > > It cannot occur in this code in any case. Except if the world changes... In a way that's still POSIX-compliant. But why would anyone want to protect themselves from that, right? > You are barking up the wrong tree. Obviously I am. > Otherwise, you can start enabling that option and sending a diff which > fixes ALL THE WARNINGS IT GIVES IN THE ENTIRE TREE. I think I'll pass on that. I wasn't aware of how many warnings a build seems to cause. This must be why NetBSD has -Werror in their CFLAGS.
