Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Hi List!
>
> I would like to say a big THANK YOU to all the developers involved in
> the "virtual warning fix" party of recent days!
>
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> :-) :-) :-)
>
>
> I'm very pleased to notice that my "call for a warning free" Wireshark
> was heard and was being answered ;-)
>
> The buildbot is now "all green" again, even with the "treat warning as
> error" setting in the buildbot makefiles.
>
> To quote myself:
>> While I would take a look on the Win32 warnings, are the unix/linux
>> developers willing to spend some time to remove warnings that don't
>> appear on Win32 (or would this be a "Win32 only" show)?
>>
> I'm pleased to notice that this wasn't a "Win32 only" show!
>
> As I did expect, some of the warnings have been fixed in a pragmatical
> way, e.g. disabled some warnings for the generated files by using a
> #pragma warning. However, this is pretty much ok for me and much better
> than what we had before. For most code files, a warning will emit an
> error now, making it much more obvious to see :-)
>
>
> So I guess we now have a much better base to prevent new warnings from
> leak into the sources.
>
> Our mission continues ...
>
Thanks for rousing us into action. It had grated with me for a long
time, but I didn't have your resolve, nor Sebastian's commitment.
--
Regards,
Graham Bloice
