From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4202 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2004 09:47:41 -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 4192 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2004 09:47:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 2004 09:47:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024EBF2C10; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:47:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 12364-01-2; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:47:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1345) id A6034F2C9D; Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:47:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Hilfinger To: cagney@gnu.org Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4162FA1F.2030207@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:46:39 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFA]: Remove warnings from ada-exp.tab.c compilation References: <20041005103727.938AEF2BD3@nile.gnat.com> <4162FA1F.2030207@gnu.org> Message-Id: <20041006094738.A6034F2C9D@nile.gnat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:47:00 -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 > I'd write this as: > > /* FIXME: hilfingr/2004-10-05: Hack to remove warning. ... > > so that who added the note and when are clear. If you're curious grep > for this pattern in the sources and quickly discover how old some of > those tempoary hacks are :-) Thanks for the suggestion. > _otherwize_ ok, Is that a Canadian spelling (:->)? > PS: > + tempbuf = (char *) realloc (tempbuf, tempbufsize); > the cast is redundant - realloc returns (void *). Yeah, well, call it a personal quirk, call it an act of rebellion. But when I see an ISO standard that tells me I don't need this conversion by saying that "A pointer to void shall have the same representation and alignment requirements as a pointer to a character type." and then tells me IN A FOOTNOTE that "The same representation and alignment requirements are meant to imply interchangeability as arguments to functions, return values from functions, and members of unions." the horror I feel at this shameless confusion of abstraction layers is such that I feel compelled to ignore the passages altogether (:->). Paul Hilfinger