From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <775b8d19050525091462ca1cf3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 02:14:05 +1000
From: Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] ftpfs & fmtinstall woe
In-Reply-To: <4d0a5dab121be47e2ac88fd30616be4d@vitanuova.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <695de14f1982116d93904ae698bac35f@terzarima.net>
	<4d0a5dab121be47e2ac88fd30616be4d@vitanuova.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 54a51068-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

It was a pragmatic decision (pun inteneded) in development of the new code.
It would be wrong to break -w by adding the varargs code.  It is now
just a relic.

brucee

On 5/25/05, rog@vitanuova.com <rog@vitanuova.com> wrote:
> bitten by this in the past, i wondered if there was a good
> reason why -F was separate from -w. are there many times when
> you want warnings but want the compiler to ignore the varargs
> pragmas?