quiet enum warnings

Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer mdw at samba.org
Tue Jun 14 11:05:47 MDT 2011

Okay, agreed.

So what should I revert? These two?

@Kai: 49352cafb4259503e6afb44d38db9bfd525d5e0d (regarding winbind)

@Metze: 260bc987b00b3fff6c9b99211627b14e9bd0789a (regarding NTVFS)

The other commits should fit since they fixed problems in a proper and 
definitive way: the samr RPC server patch added the PDC level, the 
schema_convert_to_ol added a default for impossible values and the 
librpc patch simply added a kind of placeholder.


Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:23 +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
>> On 2011-06-09 19:44, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>>>> metze:
>>> Okay, these are different point of views.
>>> Tridge, what do you think?
>> I'm not tridge, but I'll toss in my opinion here.
>>>> I think we should better fix this by adding the missing enum
>>>> values explicit instead of using a default, as that will make sure
>>>> we'll get a warning again if someone adds a new value.
>> I agree with metze. The "unhandled value in enum" warnings triggered by
>> the winbind commands enum make a great todo list when trying to keep s4
>> and s3 winbind in sync. If we add a new command, I'd rather get a new
>> warning than having to dig through code after a mysterious "not
>> supported" error triggered from a default value at some later stage.
>> I think that patches to get rid of warnings are worthwhile, but not as a
>> purpose to itself. That's what makes these patches hard and a lot of work.
> I agree.  For as long as we have multiple implementations like this, we
> should track where we are missing an implementation, and this is one way
> the compiler can help us.
> Andrew Bartlett

More information about the samba-technical mailing list