Ulf Lamping wrote: > 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 ... >
Thanks for rousing us into action. It had grated with me for a long time, but I didn't have your resolve, nor Sebastian's commitment. -- Regards, Graham Bloice _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
