Karl Fogel wrote:
>Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> writes:
>
>
>>Looking through the bite-sized issues...
>>
>>Issue 1031 (defect; bite-sized; "gcc3.3 compile warnings") is out of
>>date. Many of the warnings listed have been fixed (the
>>"uninitialised" ones anyway; not sure about the many "signed/unsigned
>>mismatch"), and many of the line numbers are now wrong. I suggest it
>>be marked "resolved: fixed" with a note if applicable that they may
>>not all have been fixed.
>>
>>Or ... If the originator or anyone can re-do the exercise and attach
>>an up-to-date list of warnings, that would be even better.
>>
>>Otherwise I'd say no further action needed until some of the
>>developers and the auto-builds have GCC 3.3 installed.
>>
>>
>
>Can you put a note to that effect in the issue? Let's leave it open
>until 0.19 and give the originator a chance to respond, before doing
>anything else with it. (I may upgrade my OS and GCC before 0.19 is
>done anyway, then there'll be one more developer easily able to check
>the status of this issue.)
>
gcc 3.3 is due out at the beginning of next month; would it be helpful
if I compiled subversion against 'head' of gcc (the eventual 3.4)?
-David Waite
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 6 00:41:57 2003