On Sunday 18 October 2009 16:31:04 Pavel Sanda wrote: > i'm not sure whether we should fix, but gcc 4.3 with monolithic build gives > those warnings:
I'm writing the following as a user, not a developer... I'm a huge fan of -Wall producing no warnings. That way I know I got a clean compile, and nobody accidentally (without a typecast in otherwords) used an address as a long or vice versa. With no-warning software, if I get a warning I can investigate. A lot of software projects have the attitude "hey, they're just warnings, can't you take a joke?" as warnings scroll down the screen like a waterfall. Obviously no user is going to investigate ANY of those warnings -- you just hold your nose, cross your fingers, hope for the best and run it. I can't even begin to imagine writing software targetted for Linux, Unix, BSD, Mac and Windows, with all sorts of different gcc versions, all sorts of non-gcc compilers, different kernels with different capabilities, different Qt4 versions and the like. I wouldn't fault anyone for having warnings in such a tower of babel. All I'm saying is that if eliminating these warnings is a *choice*, as a user I'd ask you to choose to eliminate them. StevET Steve Litt Recession Relief Package http://www.recession-relief.US Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stevelitt
