From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10874 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2002 20:38:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10867 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2002 20:38:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2002 20:38:28 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBDKCcP04583 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:12:38 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBDKcQD14476; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:38:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBDKcQY02205; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:38:26 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBDKcKL21777; Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:38:20 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:44:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1021213203820.ZM21776@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [RFC] Replace complain() with complaint()" (Dec 13, 3:21pm) References: <1021212043633.ZM12225@localhost.localdomain> <3DFA412D.4030409@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [RFC] Replace complain() with complaint() Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00429.txt.bz2 On Dec 13, 3:21pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > - complain (&anon_block_end_complaint, BLOCK_END (block), BLOCK_START (block)); > > + complaint (&symfile_complaints, > > + "block end address 0x%lx less than block start address 0x%lx (patched it)", > > + BLOCK_END (block), BLOCK_START (block)); > > Hmm, I don't think that is right. It should have attacted a -Wformat > warning as block start/end are core-addrs. From memory though, a native > i386 build has CORE_ADDR as a long which might explain why you don't see > the warning. > > Puzzled. Yeah, I did a native i386 build. I just rebuilt that file. No warning. I'll try a cross build for a 64-bit target... Kevin