erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> said: > how about changing 9c so you don't get this warning?
At the moment the compiler is set to report all warnings (-Wall). I would rather ignore these two warnings then turn the warnings off. Out of curiosity is there a reason why the subroutines should not be declared void walkavl... instead of static void walkavl? I understand that removing the static declaration puts the two subroutines in question into global namespace when linking to libavl. I did a quick check and removing the static declaration removed the warnings, and plan9port built without incident. I hope I am not being annoying, I really am trying to get a sense of the communities coding and process standards. Thanks and best regards, EBo --
