From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  2 Mar 2010 10:40:27 -0700
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
From: "EBo" <ebo@sandien.com>
Message-ID: <twig.1267551627.47659@swcp.com>
In-Reply-To: <7dfd70b01002260716p2bfbec09rfb305f284d9a1433@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a9328362-f0e8-4203-b6ff-bc9ee838c64e@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
	<a9328362-f0e8-4203-b6ff-bc9ee838c64e@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] compiler warnings for libavl/avl.c
Topicbox-Message-UUID: deb26fa8-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


> > 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.

Agreed.  Should the declarations be changed then to void instead of static
void so that it does not give warnings?  I've worked on some projects where
the leads where very pedantic about cleaning up all warnings and was wondering
what the consensus amongst the plan 9 crowd.

> > -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.

I simply noticed the patch and was wondering if there would be any advantage
to including it, so I have no idea if there is any specific advantage.  I also
was not sure if this was simply a POSIX'ism or a 9'ism, and if this
could/should be cleaned up.

  EBo --