I'm certainly not diplomatic material. But, what you have said is exactly what I meant. I get more than a little weary of people who take "free" code and whine about it. My belief is if you don't like it, fix it yourself or shut up after your initial "notification" of the issue.
As to calling Bill's little company "Mickeysoft", I bought my first PC the month of the introduction and have used Microsoft's products ever since. I think I have earned and paid enough to call Bill's company anything I want. Unfortunately I have watched more that one superior software technology succumb to the steamroller that has become Microsoft. And, it bothers me to once again see marketing exceed over functionality (Anybody old enough to remember IBM and the seven dwarfs?). So, sorry if you don't like my choice of names. Let's not waste any more bandwidth here. If you wish to respond, my email address is in the header Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 8:28 AM > To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org > Subject: Re: [sqlite] SQLite as a Windows kernel tool > > > What is important is the implication of the compile warnings. > I agree > that they should not be ignored, but they should be understood. For > example we always take pains to remove all compiler warnings, > even the > innocuous and gratuitous ones, so that "noise" does not hide a > significant warning. > > It should not be too much trouble for you to go through Sqlite and > remove the gratuitous warnings and then investigate any > remaining. It > would be a useful contribution to the cause and does make a > contribution > to "zero defect" quality. > > We find that just indiscriminately casting can do more harm > than good. > Working on the underlying types to achieve consistency is better, > otherwise you end up with a dog's breakfast like the Win32 API. > JS > > Nuno Lucas wrote: > > On 10/31/05, Fred Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Look I'm certain you mean well, but the rest of us are > pretty busy using > >>one of the best small footprint databases on the planet. > That means we > >>are way too busy to nit-pic a good product to pieces, just > because it > >>won't compile clean using Mickeysoft's latest and greatest. > > > > > > If you forget about "Mickeysoft's latest and greatest" and only > > consider GNU C compiler will that make you change your mind? > > > > gcc 3.3 and 3.4 compile without warnings, but 4.0 is a lot > more picky > > even without -Wall. > > > > For people like me that always enable all warnings, it > makes it a must > > to compile sqlite as a library, because it's a nightmare to use it > > "embebed". > > > > I still love sqlite, it's just a feature request, nothing > more, nothing less. > > > > As an example, I downloaded the preprocessed code, removed > tclsqlite.c, and: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/sqlite$ gcc-4.0 *.c > > alter.c: In function 'renameTableFunc': > > alter.c:50: warning: pointer targets in initialization > differ in signedness > > alter.c:61: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ ...
