> If you produce a (also non-gcc) tested patch, ok. This change seems
> rather benign.
I think I'm gonna drop this one, for two reasons. There are other
equally un-severe warnings that are probably much harder to get rid
of, and the code in question doesn't exist in libtool 1.9 or cvs.
Cheers,
Hi Stefaan,
* Stefaan wrote on Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 12:06:10PM CEST:
> > Only if a clean fix is possible, fixes it on all kinds of compilers
> > while not introducing new warnings (or failures! Yes, I've managed
> > to do that once!) on others, and rather not for branch-1-5. Of course,
> > warni
> Only if a clean fix is possible, fixes it on all kinds of compilers
> while not introducing new warnings (or failures! Yes, I've managed
> to do that once!) on others, and rather not for branch-1-5. Of course,
> warnings that show actual bugs are a different matter altogether.
Why the exemptio
Hi Stefaan,
* Stefaan wrote on Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 09:16:33AM CEST:
>
> I don't know how bad you want compiler warnings fixed,
Only if a clean fix is possible, fixes it on all kinds of compilers
while not introducing new warnings (or failures! Yes, I've managed
to do that once!) on others, and
Hi!
I don't know how bad you want compiler warnings fixed, but since
packages seem to copy this source file I'm inclined to report it: (I
bumped into this trying to eliminate warnings out of "kaffe")
ltdl/ltdl.c contains a function strrchr with declaration (line 346)
static const char *strrchr LT
