25 Sep
2018
25 Sep
'18
5:45 a.m.
On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 22:39 +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
The reasoning behind it was similar to the "no warnings" reasoning of upstream: there might be real issues hiding in the sea of "harmless" warnings, so we want to get rid of all of them to catch real issues.
I believe this to be a poor idea for -stable acceptance.
It's impossible to know when gcc or any other compiler would decide to add any new warning.