>On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike
>(-) developers forum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>This looks like a good opportunity to mention a few patches that I
>>>haven't heard back regarding. They're mostly fairly trivial/simple. Is
>>>there a better way to suggest patches than posting them to this list
>>>or pike@roxen?
>>
>> Either works.
>>
>> Applied all of them except for the low_read_file() patch,
>> which I fail to see a reason for.
>
>Thanks!
>
>That was to cure a compiler warning using gcc on OS/2, if I recall
>correctly. Not a big deal, was just a "try to make sure things are
>safe" check. Unlikely - if even possible - to make a difference on any
>actually-supported platform.
The PRINTPIKEOFFT stuff is intended to fix such warnings. A problem
with the patch was that it wasn't 64-bit clean, and as it is just a
fatal diagnostic I don't see any reason to change it.
/grubba
