On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:08:34AM +0000, Nicolas Bernard wrote: > A warning doesn't necessarily means the code is wrong (for these > cases, you have something else, called an "error" ;-) ), just that > it is strange! My earlier comments aside, I agree that the patch should be applied. I don't think it makes sense to write code that compiles with warnings, just because someone might possibly change the implementation in the future in a way in which would, at that time, make the code which generates the warnings actually useful. Unless there were a specific plan or roadmap which would lead, in the relatively near future, to requiring the code to be written that way, I think it's far preferable to avoid the compilation warnings. Otherwise one does risk losing "interesting" warnings in the noise. Down the road, if someone decides to change the code such that the tests which generate the warnings are necessary, it should be his responsibility to make sure the required tests are performed, and then the responsibility of the maintainers to examine the code to make sure it doesn't get checked in if it's broken. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachment:
pgpLYEiLfh7kT.pgp
Description: PGP signature