Jeff Morriss wrote:
> In fact I meant it just as a stop-gap until someone (smarter--or at
> least with more than to dedicate to the purpose--than me) can fix
> Wireshark's unsigned-vs-signed char problem.
>
> As it is, I have to scroll through hundreds of (probably not fixable by
> me) warnings just to get to things I have a chance of fixing. There's
> so many that my eyes glaze over as I'm looking for warnings--which makes
> it hard to detect "real" (read: "things I can do something about") warnings.
>
> When I've gone on warning-fixing kicks I've resorted to doing:
>
> % grep -i warn make.out | grep -iv "signed" | less
>
> to find the ("real") warnings. :-(
>
What you describe is one of the consequences with our current way of
doing. Even people that are willing to fix their or other peoples
warnings are having a "hard time" as there are so many of them :-(
If you start to fix the warnings that you can fix, that'll be a lot
better than doing nothing at all ;-)
I just meant that in the long run just ignoring a long list of warnings
is probably not a good idea ...
However, disabling the signed warning, fix the rest and setting the
"stop on error" barrier would still be a lot better than what we
currently have ...
Regards, ULFL
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
