Sebastian Huber writes:
> On 09.04.24 14:10, Sam James wrote:
>> Sebastian Huber writes:
>>
>>> On 20.11.23 10:56, Florian Weimer wrote:
In the future, it may make sense to avoid cascading errors from
the implicit declaration, especially its assumed int return type.
This change h
On 09.04.24 14:10, Sam James wrote:
Sebastian Huber writes:
On 20.11.23 10:56, Florian Weimer wrote:
In the future, it may make sense to avoid cascading errors from
the implicit declaration, especially its assumed int return type.
This change here only changes the kind of the diagnostic, not
Sebastian Huber writes:
> On 20.11.23 10:56, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> In the future, it may make sense to avoid cascading errors from
>> the implicit declaration, especially its assumed int return type.
>> This change here only changes the kind of the diagnostic, not
>> its wording or consequence
On 20.11.23 10:56, Florian Weimer wrote:
In the future, it may make sense to avoid cascading errors from
the implicit declaration, especially its assumed int return type.
This change here only changes the kind of the diagnostic, not
its wording or consequences.
Maybe this change should be added
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:56:16AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> In the future, it may make sense to avoid cascading errors from
> the implicit declaration, especially its assumed int return type.
> This change here only changes the kind of the diagnostic, not
> its wording or consequences.
Looks
