Package Miscellaneous error installation on "x86_64-suse-linux-gnu".

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Sergei Steshenko <sergstesh at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 12/29/08, Jaroslav Hajek <highegg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Jaroslav Hajek <highegg at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: Package Miscellaneous error installation on "x86_64-suse-linux-gnu".
>> To: "Zx♥ch.m" <zxoch.m at gmail.com>
>> Cc: bug-octave at octave.org
>> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 1:32 AM
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Zx♥ch.m
>> <zxoch.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Warnings are not errors.
>
> [snip]
>
>> --
>> RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
>> computing expert
>> Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
>> Prague, Czech Republic
>> url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz
>
>
> Warnings _are_ errors. You just don't know yet how they'll manifest
> themselves.
>

Depends on your definition of an error. In any case, warnings don't
prevent you from compiling the sources, while errors do. That's a
compiler's definition.

> In the last 15..20 years I haven't had any good reason to afford myself a
> warning in the code I've developed.
>

Even if that was a good enough reason to classify warnings as bugs,
what if you see the warning and I don't? What level of warnings is the
right one? What if, in the next version of gcc, a new warning option
is implemented? Will that introduce bugs into a previously unbuggy
code?


> Regards,
>  Sergei.
>
>
>
>



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz