Julian Foad wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 00:07 +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>> This will sound like yet another rant: whatever happened to our policy
>> of keeping the code free of warnings? I'm referring specifically to the
>> large number of deprecation warnings that come from almost every
>> function in svn_path.h being deprecated.
>> I'm all for replacing those functions with the uri, dirent and relpath
>> variants. However, there's no excuse for deprecating everything, then
>> leaving the warnings in. Sure it's tedious and boring work to fix the
>> warnings ... and I wouldn't worry if there were only a few of them. But
>> the current situations is intolerable because it makes maintainer-mode
>> much less useful than it should be.
> Yes. I currently add -Wno-deprecated-declarations to CFLAGS and ignore
> the issue. (Also -Wno-unreachable-code -Wno-format-nonliteral.)
> But it would be good to sort it out. I have started analyzing/reviewing
> the path functions.
So upon reflection, and looking at this a bit more, it seems to me that
the majority of the culprits is in path.c and target.c. In the former
case, the whole implementation file is apparently deprecated; so we
/could/ fix the issue with a bit of pragma trickery.
I'm not sure about target.c; at first glance it appears to be of the
same ilk as path.c, but I'm not sure, and I'm a bit confused by how
little the functions from target.c are actually used.
Bright ideas welcomd; I'd be happy to help with ridding our code code of
the deprecation warnings.
Received on 2009-11-02 15:18:24 CET