From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  2 Mar 2010 11:41:03 -0700
To: "erik quanstrom" <quanstro@quanstro.net>, <ebo@sandien.com>,
	<9fans@9fans.net>
From: "EBo" <ebo@sandien.com>
Message-ID: <twig.1267555263.12166@swcp.com>
In-Reply-To: <0d7eca13df84b4712c896f255f4f9285@brasstown.quanstro.net>
References: <a9328362-f0e8-4203-b6ff-bc9ee838c64e@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
	<twig.1267551627.47659@swcp.com>, <twig.1267551627.47659@swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] compiler warnings for libavl/avl.c
Topicbox-Message-UUID: dec6fbd0-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> said:

> how about changing 9c so you don't get this warning?

At the moment the compiler is set to report all warnings (-Wall).  I would
rather ignore these two warnings then turn the warnings off.

Out of curiosity is there a reason why the subroutines should not be declared
void walkavl... instead of static void walkavl?  I understand that removing
the static declaration puts the two subroutines in question into global
namespace when linking to libavl.

I did a quick check and removing the static declaration removed the warnings,
and plan9port built without incident.

I hope I am not being annoying, I really am trying to get a sense of the
communities coding and process standards.

  Thanks and best regards,

  EBo --