From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39055-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30524 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 07:15:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30384 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 07:15:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 07:15:08 -0000
Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-65-115.inter.net.il [80.230.65.115])
	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR)
	with ESMTP id BCE62896 (AUTH halo1);
	Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:14:29 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:15:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <01c54c8a$Blat.v2.4$ffbe8140@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <42715EE8.5070704@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Thu, 28
	Apr 2005 18:08:40 -0400)
Subject: Re: [commit] Use bfd_byte in value.h
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <42710E90.3030300@gnu.org> <200504281919.j3SJJKF1011501@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <42715EE8.5070704@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:08:40 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Like I mentioned on gdb@, these are for warnings you get when building 
> with GCC 4 (or for that matter, any modern compiler).  vis:
> 
> cagney@tornado$ cat -n s.c
>       1  char *c;
>       2  signed char *s;
>       3  unsigned char *u;
>       4
>       5  void foo (void)
>       6  {
>       7    c = s;
>       8    c = u;
>       9    s = u;
>      10  }
> $ gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 4.0.0 20050412 (Red Hat 4.0.0-0.42)
> ...
> $ gcc -c s.c
> s.c: In function foo:
> s.c:7: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
> s.c:8: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness
> s.c:9: warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness

But why should we solve this with bfd_byte?  Why not introduce GDB's
own data type, like gdb_byte or some such?

BFD is just a library; there's no need to pollute our name space with
BFD's.  It's IMHO unclean.

But I already said this, and was already ignored when I did, sigh...