win32 warnings

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

any reason we can't just bump the warning level down one?

It may miss a few things, but... better than the crap it spews now.  The
problem is that it appears like there is no way to set a warning level
between something that only warns about things that are fixable (eg. no
prototype for function before use) and things that are silly (eg.
unsigned/signed compare).

Re: win32 warnings

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> any reason we can't just bump the warning level down one?
> 
> It may miss a few things, but... better than the crap it spews now.  The
> problem is that it appears like there is no way to set a warning level
> between something that only warns about things that are fixable (eg. no
> prototype for function before use) and things that are silly (eg.
> unsigned/signed compare).

Actually most parts of the code produce very few warnings - the proxy
code produces loads at the moment, coz someone bumped it to /W4 (instead
of the more usual /W3).

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

Re: win32 warnings

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

No, I really don't think that littering all sorts of pragmas through the
code to disable them in the appropriate places is the right thingto do.

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:

> any reason we can't just bump the warning level down one?
> 
> It may miss a few things, but... better than the crap it spews now.  The
> problem is that it appears like there is no way to set a warning level
> between something that only warns about things that are fixable (eg. no
> prototype for function before use) and things that are silly (eg.
> unsigned/signed compare).
>