From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  2 Mar 2010 12:12:43 -0500
To: ebo@sandien.com, 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <a4ff9f6c87411f897b9d71148b387ac8@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <twig.1267549333.38591@swcp.com>
References: <a9328362-f0e8-4203-b6ff-bc9ee838c64e@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
	<twig.1267549333.38591@swcp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] compiler warnings for libavl/avl.c
Topicbox-Message-UUID: deae1d22-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue Mar  2 12:03:35 EST 2010, ebo@sandien.com wrote:
>
> The following two subroutines are defined and not used anywhere.  Should they
> redefined as void or possibly removed?

it's perfectly reasonable to leave code in for testing purposes
that never gets called.

> -int errno;
> +#include <errno.h>
>
> should the base source include this patch?

what's the advantage?  the current p9p system
has worked for a long time.  including errno.h
seems like it has the potential to break a lot of
stuff.

- erik