Hi,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 01:22:26PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
> > I'm just not going to care very much about the warnings it might throw
> > (and I might object to any patches that are "just for the benefit of
> > suppressing warnings from gcc-4").
>
> Fair enough. But that will actually
On 29/11/2019 12:37, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:25:13PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
>> On 29/11/2019 11:52, Gert Doering wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:47:02AM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
With GCC-4.3.8, I see this warning:
>>>
>>> This is about as o
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:25:13PM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
> On 29/11/2019 11:52, Gert Doering wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:47:02AM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
> >> With GCC-4.3.8, I see this warning:
> >
> > This is about as old as you :-) - do we care about suppressing wa
On 29/11/2019 11:52, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:47:02AM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
>> With GCC-4.3.8, I see this warning:
>
> This is about as old as you :-) - do we care about suppressing warnings
> in old gcc versions that might suppress a *relevant* warning wh
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:47:02AM +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
> With GCC-4.3.8, I see this warning:
This is about as old as you :-) - do we care about suppressing warnings
in old gcc versions that might suppress a *relevant* warning when
compiling with a current gcc version?
gert
--
"If
I upgraded clang to 9.0 and warning disappeared.
https://travis-ci.org/lstipakov/openvpn/builds/618527918
Patch is on the list.
to 28. marrask. 2019 klo 21.44 Gert Doering (g...@greenie.muc.de) kirjoitti:
> hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:56:34AM -0500, Selva Nair wrote:
> > I think the corr
On 28/11/2019 20:43, Gert Doering wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:56:34AM -0500, Selva Nair wrote:
>> I think the correct fix here is to remove -Werror from travis build.
>> I have tried and failed to lobby for this earlier, but one more try
>> can't hurt, I suppose :)
>
> Can we rest
hi,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:56:34AM -0500, Selva Nair wrote:
> I think the correct fix here is to remove -Werror from travis build.
> I have tried and failed to lobby for this earlier, but one more try
> can't hurt, I suppose :)
Can we restrict -Werror to gcc builds, for the time being?
If no
Hi
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM Steffan Karger <
steffan.kar...@foxcrypto.com> wrote:
> On 28-11-2019 09:06, Lev Stipakov wrote:
> > A struct with subobjects should be initialized
> > with double braces.
>
> This is not true. {0} is a valid initializer for structs in C. Both
> clang and gcc u
On 28-11-2019 09:06, Lev Stipakov wrote:
> A struct with subobjects should be initialized
> with double braces.
This is not true. {0} is a valid initializer for structs in C. Both
clang and gcc used to have a bug where they incorrectly warned about
this. GCC fixed this a while ago[0]. I thought cl
10 matches
Mail list logo
