On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, David Holland wrote:
I think we should make no changes to appease the compiler in
this case. [...]
I would lean towards fixing the ones that can be fixed
noninvasively; [...]
The compiler is being really stupid, and I don't like making
invasive changes to appease it. No
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 08:07:11AM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
> If it helped, then it would also be fine to change
> const char * format = "%s";
> to
> const char * const format = "%s";
> but it doesn't help.
but:
const char format[] ="%s";
works just fine.
Martin
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, David Holland wrote:
> >> I think we should make no changes to appease the compiler in
> >> this case. [...]
> >
> > I would lean towards fixing the ones that can be fixed
> > noninvasively; [...]
>
> The compiler is being really stupid, and I don't like making
> invasive
In article <20110818142524.ga26...@britannica.bec.de>,
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:47:19AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> In article <20110817212805.gb16...@britannica.bec.de>,
>> Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> >Could you please stop randomly changing 3rd party code wi
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:55:20AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Every project I know off makes changes locally first and then pushes
> them upstream. It is not practical to wait for upstream to be fixed
> first, specially in cases of security fixes. In some cases we
> maintain many thousands of
Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:55:20AM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> Every project I know off makes changes locally first and then pushes
>> them upstream. It is not practical to wait for upstream to be fixed
>> first, specially in cases of security fixes. In some case
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
> As long as I remember, we've had a strict policy of submitting changes
> upstream where possible, but of _not_ gating fixes on this process --
> particularly fixes which are security or correctness related (the latter
> includes fixes with
I've sent the diff to Kristaps and he included it in his repository.
Thomas
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:28:05PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Could you please stop randomly changing 3rd party code without
> contacting the maintainer?
>
> Joerg
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 05:30:14AM -0400, C
Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:19:46AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
>> As long as I remember, we've had a strict policy of submitting changes
>> upstream where possible, but of _not_ gating fixes on this process --
>> particularly fixes which are security or correctness related
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:57:53AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
> And the project has a long history of making sure all (these days: most)
> code in the base distribution builds with -Wall -Werror. This isn't
> because every GCC warning is right, of course -- it's because when you
> turn off warnings fo
Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:57:53AM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
>> And the project has a long history of making sure all (these days: most)
>> code in the base distribution builds with -Wall -Werror. This isn't
>> because every GCC warning is right, of course -- it's becau
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:54:28PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> When have you last checked the number of -Wno-* instances in base?
> Sorry, but pessimizing code to work around clearly bogus GCC warnings is
> not helpful. It doesn't make code easier to read, it doesn't improve
> code quality.
12 matches
Mail list logo
