signed vs unsigned comparison warnings

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message <200006201600.MAA28768@caip.rutgers.edu>you write:
  > 
  >  >      65 comparison between signed and unsigned
  >  >      61 pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
  >  >      52 Use of ANSI string concatenation
  >  >      51 comma at end of enumerator list
  >  >      39 pointer targets in passing arg ??? of `???' differ in signedness
  >  >      17 promoted argument `???' doesn't match prototype
  >  > 
  >  > This is either a catastrophe, or no big deal, depending how you look
  >  > at it.
  > 
  > :-)
  > 
  > IMHO warning `noise' tends to make everyone ignore the serious ones.
  > We should try to reduce noise if possible.  Its a constant battle...
One note here.

I'm not aware of a single bug fixed by the boatloads of changes to eliminate
signed vs unsigned comparison warnings.  Yet there have been several bugs
introduced by those "fixes".

As a result, I think it is in our best interest to not try and "fix" such
warnings and instead turn off the warnings on the command line.  We've got
bigger fish to fry IMHO.

jeff