> I just cut out around 100 warnings last night in 45 minutes, so I
> don't plan on having this take several months or anything. If I get
> stuck, I'll just give it up.
Would you mind posting a batch of these to the tracker? I'd like
to review them, just to be sure we have the same understanding.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:04, shibturn wrote:
> On 22/02/2012 3:32am, Brian Curtin wrote:
>>
>> 1. Is anyone opposed to moving up to Level 4 warnings?
>
>
> At that level I think it complains about common things like the "do {...}
> while (0)" idiom, and the unreferenced self parameter of builtin
On 22/02/2012 3:32am, Brian Curtin wrote:
1. Is anyone opposed to moving up to Level 4 warnings?
At that level I think it complains about common things like the "do
{...} while (0)" idiom, and the unreferenced self parameter of builtin
functions.
Presumably you would have to disable those s
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 23:45, wrote:
>
> Zitat von Brian Curtin :
>
>
>> While some effort has gone on to get the 32-bit build to compile
>> without warnings (thanks for that!), 64-bit still has numerous
>> warnings. Before I push forward on more of the VS2010 port, I'd like
>> to have a clean 2
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:32:23 -0600
Brian Curtin wrote:
> While some effort has gone on to get the 32-bit build to compile
> without warnings (thanks for that!), 64-bit still has numerous
> warnings. Before I push forward on more of the VS2010 port, I'd like
> to have a clean 2008 build all around
Zitat von Brian Curtin :
While some effort has gone on to get the 32-bit build to compile
without warnings (thanks for that!), 64-bit still has numerous
warnings. Before I push forward on more of the VS2010 port, I'd like
to have a clean 2008 build all around so we can more easily track what
ma
