Re: Patch to execve

["Kevin M. Kilbride" <kmk@xxxxxxx>]

Bill Hacker wrote:

> I apreciate your thorough research, but do not see this as a 'show 
> stopper'.

Actually, that's exactly what I said two posts ago. There is no problem 
here that prevents compilation of any code. This is not a functionality 
issue. The world will not end if this bug remains unfixed forever. But, 
by the same token, it also does not prevent efforts to change the 
signature of library or kernel functions that resort to these 
promotions. These are just warnings, after all.

The only issue here is whether or not the WARNS=6 project is truly 
advisable in light of these facts. If you actually suffer a regression 
in program safety by eliminating all warnings under GCC, one has to 
question about the wisdom of the exercise.


> Side question, but does anyone have access to the commercial Intel 8.X 
> compiler, can it compile the DragonFlyBSD sources, and what, just for 
> comparison, does it do about issues of this sort?


Hmmm. A very interesting suggestion. Maybe I'll download it and find out 
(it's available free for non-commercial use now).