[Spice-devel] To warn or not to warn

[Christophe Fergeau]

On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 06:35:33AM -0400, Alon Levy wrote:
> > ...that is the question.
> > 
> > I started a thread here:
> > 
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/2012-September/010801.html
> > 
> > on dealing with the (many) warnings in xf86-video-qxl.
> > 
> > I think it boils down to one big question:  are we willing to satisfy
> > gcc, or do we want to turn off warnings we dislike?
> > 
> > I have a mild preference for the first approach, but I have a
> > *strong*
> > desire to have the warnings gone, however it is accomplished.
> > 
> > That thread went dormant; I don't really have a clear sense of what
> > the
> > decision making process is here, or how to bring this to resolution.
> > 
> > My plan is just to keep being a PITA until my @$@#$ warnings go away
> > <evil grin>.
> 
> I'm for the former, you can find an earlier patch of mine to remove the
> constant string related warnings that didn't go in. Actually I'm entirely
> with your order of preferences.

Iirc, we inherit the flag causing the const warning from xorg, and at the
same time, xorg API is missing some constness love in parts of its API
where we want to pass it a static string. That's why I tend to favour
getting rid of that warning as avoiding it makes the code less nice in my
opinion.
That said, you both agree about keeping that warning and going out of our
way to please xorg, so I'm fine with any patches you agree on ;)

Christophe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/attachments/20121004/0509e66f/attachment-0001.pgp>