From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19072 invoked by alias); 19 May 2011 16:49:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 29326 Received: (qmail 20158 invoked from network); 19 May 2011 16:49:26 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.google.com designates 209.85.212.43 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=xQo+nYHznQF1HSU3qsX4uDVFiTILdYskZT8Am0cnAe4=; b=cfeJRsNWI1Kao/YS50m7w84Ez2luX3R7i97r0XilYhaFRKrcHjHLr/N1FYS5p5SwUP feiGZd8YJ7OwIX/6Z4kYPKTlV2nkk4roFPkLNxhKY1sImKcCd2y58UGi2BMiUPL6+KQh pIAdmbqWdA+RM4lgT098iRCPcygOH58elJSgY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=bGFf/9u0c6/hwWKqI4rL1RDYUT+50cOtVYf0V3VCY6k9f3gz95iGLZVhnPNz65XPPN Tl4/mVntbnipLecuXm0nzXooiBKTAlvfCWXcKIhqXgpyNwl3PslnPRD2c+aUNC/KcvnH bNK7R67PZd5mYlDSV9xuG9GvE8sy3eBl5EL/8= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20110519140215.2879aeeb@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 18:49:20 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Next zsh release From: Mikael Magnusson To: Bart Schaefer Cc: Peter Stephenson , "Zsh Hackers' List" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 19 May 2011 17:17, Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Mikael Magnusson wrote: >> PATCH: Remove some unused assignments/checks noticed by clang > > I'm really leery of this one. There were at least two cases someone > spotted where the changes were wrong, weren't there? Seems like a bad > thing to gamble on right before a release. While trying to build statically to double check these changes, I noticed this happens when building zftp statically: In file included from zftp.c:54: zftp.mdh:5:1: warning: "boot_" redefined In file included from zftp.c:53: tcp.mdh:5:1: warning: this is the location of the previous definition and so on for all those functions. It seems to work though, since the files are included in the correct order. -- Mikael Magnusson