Am Donnerstag, den 04.09.2008, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin: > Fine, but only if we decide to fix the existing warnings. I'm not sure > it's worth the trouble. Just because a macro is considered obsolete, > it's not necessarily broken. End users won't run Autoconf, so they > won't have problems if a newer Autoconf removes an obsolete macro.
All obsolete things should be mostly fixed by running `autoupdate' For fixing the other kind of warnings I'll need to find out more about that autoconf stuff. With -Wall hopefully someone notices that he just introduced a warning with his change and trys to fix this before commiting. > Compiler warnings are more likely to indicate a problem with the > compiled code than autoconf warnings. They can also indicate problems > with different compilers, and users will use different compilers. This would be just more consistent. But yes for the compiler and so for the code itself this is more important. -- Felix Zielcke _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
