Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Jeff Morriss wrote:
>> Actually GCC already has a way to avoid this: "-Wno-pointer-sign".
>>
>> Apparently:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg00505.html
>>
>> someone didn't like the fact that Linux had a few thousand such warnings
>> when compiled with GCC 4.
>>
>> We could add that and probably cut down the number of GCC warnings by,
>> well, a few thousand.
>>
>> Unfortunately I can't quite seem to figure out how to (correctly) test
>> if GCC will accept the option, though. Any ideas?
>>
> Well, you can disable almost any gcc warning, but that is not the point.
>
> It's about *fixing* warnings, not *ignoring* them :-)
In fact I meant it just as a stop-gap until someone (smarter--or at
least with more than to dedicate to the purpose--than me) can fix
Wireshark's unsigned-vs-signed char problem.
As it is, I have to scroll through hundreds of (probably not fixable by
me) warnings just to get to things I have a chance of fixing. There's
so many that my eyes glaze over as I'm looking for warnings--which makes
it hard to detect "real" (read: "things I can do something about") warnings.
When I've gone on warning-fixing kicks I've resorted to doing:
% grep -i warn make.out | grep -iv "signed" | less
to find the ("real") warnings. :-(
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
