Hi List! I would like to say a big THANK YOU to all the developers involved in the "virtual warning fix" party of recent days!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) I'm very pleased to notice that my "call for a warning free" Wireshark was heard and was being answered ;-) The buildbot is now "all green" again, even with the "treat warning as error" setting in the buildbot makefiles. To quote myself: > While I would take a look on the Win32 warnings, are the unix/linux > developers willing to spend some time to remove warnings that don't > appear on Win32 (or would this be a "Win32 only" show)? > I'm pleased to notice that this wasn't a "Win32 only" show! As I did expect, some of the warnings have been fixed in a pragmatical way, e.g. disabled some warnings for the generated files by using a #pragma warning. However, this is pretty much ok for me and much better than what we had before. For most code files, a warning will emit an error now, making it much more obvious to see :-) So I guess we now have a much better base to prevent new warnings from leak into the sources. Our mission continues ... Regards, ULFL P.S: I've added a small section to the README.developer file saying that code should be warning free. P.P.S: Please excuse me already now for code with gcc warnings, as I'll usually only see the MSVC ones ... _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
