https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2916
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy Harris <jgh146...@wizmail.org> --- (In reply to Martin Kealey from comment #5) > 3. check for the existence of a sentinel but then exclude it (ret=dir). Is that changing the functionality of ret=dir? If so, back-compatitibility argues against it. > was trivial to include all the other standard S_IFxxx > inode types, and they could be accommodated without runtime overhead. All very well, but don't forget the ongoing maintenance costs of extra cruft. Especially if it's of little use. I'm not rejecting it here, only making the point. (comment #6) > the %#x format was defined by C89 ... for a C library routine. You're not using one. (comment #7) > The UNUSED macro is to silence the compiler warnings Chasing compiler warnings is pointless. They are endlessly proliferating. Yes, we've built up cruft over the years in trying to do so. If you're annoyed by your particular compiler and version of compiler being verbose, turn that warning off using commandline options. (comment #8) > So I would suggest that the onus should be reversed No. Change in behaviour, on those platforms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##