From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14593 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2002 18:50:57 -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 14537 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2002 18:50:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 18:50:56 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 1F6B0D2CC1; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:50:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Should we fix warnings from GCC 2.xx? Message-ID: <20020912185054.GA1105@gnat.com> References: <20020911234319.GN1105@gnat.com> <3D80B892.4050203@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D80B892.4050203@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00204.txt.bz2 > Regardless, I don't see how it can hurt. Removes the dangling `else' > problem. Ok, thanks for the clarification. I will check-in this patch shortly and send the associated [PATCH] email as a confirmation. There is also the exact same error in exec.c that I will fix. -- Joel