[Richard van der Hoff <richardv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ulf Lamping wrote:
> I just meant that in the long run just ignoring a long list of warnings 
> is probably not a good idea ...
>
> However, disabling the signed warning, fix the rest and setting the 
> "stop on error" barrier would still be a lot better than what we 
> currently have ...

I heartily agree with Ulf on this - anything that you can do to reduce 
the number of warnings is a good thing.

Currently, you don't tend to even notice new warnings that you introduce 
on your own platform, as they get lost in the general compilation noise.

What needs to happen is a purge on as many warnings as possible, 
followed by turning on "treat warnings as errors". This can be done 
platform-by-platform if need be.

If you have to turn off the signed warning to make this viable, so be it 
- but it's there for a reason, and in general should be possible to fix 
properly rather than either just turning it off altogether, or casting 
away with a (void*).

Incidentally, if anyone knows the right knob to stop gcc accepting 
variable declarations in the middle of a block of code, it really needs 
turning on. I manage to mess this up almost every time I submit a patch...