From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1938 invoked from network); 28 May 2004 19:30:54 -0000 Received: from thor.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (130.225.247.86) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 May 2004 19:30:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 6675 invoked from network); 28 May 2004 19:30:37 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 28 May 2004 19:30:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 23955 invoked by alias); 28 May 2004 19:30:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 19994 Received: (qmail 23936 invoked from network); 28 May 2004 19:30:35 -0000 Received: from thor.dotsrc.org (HELO a.mx.sunsite.dk) (qmailr@130.225.247.86) by sunsite.dk with SMTP; 28 May 2004 19:30:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 6492 invoked from network); 28 May 2004 19:30:31 -0000 Received: from dsl3-63-249-88-2.cruzio.com (HELO binome.blorf.net) (63.249.88.2) by a.mx.sunsite.dk with SMTP; 28 May 2004 19:30:30 -0000 Received: by binome.blorf.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 63EDB428; Fri, 28 May 2004 12:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 12:30:27 -0700 From: Wayne Davison To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Enabling more warnings? Message-ID: <20040528193027.GC2403@blorf.net> References: <20040525192254.GF7832@blorf.net> <20040525201849.GH7832@blorf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040525201849.GH7832@blorf.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 on a.mx.sunsite.dk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=6.0 tests=BAYES_44 autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Hits: -0.0 On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 01:18:49PM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote: > Attached is a patch that [...] fixes most of the new warnings that > showed up [with -W -Wno-unused-parameter] Since no one objected to the warning fixes, I've reviewed them for correctness and checked them in. I did not commit any changes to configure, though. We had one vote so far for marking all the unused parameters with an UNUSED() macro, and I'd be willing to do that and check in the changes. Any objections? ..wayne..