From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30382 invoked by alias); 2 May 2005 16:35:34 -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 30339 invoked from network); 2 May 2005 16:35:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 May 2005 16:35:24 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j42GZLZQ010938; Mon, 2 May 2005 18:35:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j42GZLh8007871; Mon, 2 May 2005 18:35:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j42GZHeH011543; Mon, 2 May 2005 18:35:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200505021635.j42GZHeH011543@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: cagney@gnu.org CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <42764DD6.3070902@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Mon, 02 May 2005 11:57:10 -0400) Subject: Re: [commit] note non-building architectures References: <42756233.5080809@gnu.org> <200505012332.j41NWMH0026515@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <42764DD6.3070902@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:57:10 -0400 From: Andrew Cagney Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 19:11:47 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > As part of getting ready for GCC 4, I've found that a number of arches > don't build with gcc-3.4 when using gdb_mbuild.sh. As an aid, and to > stop me and presumably others from going round in circles, I've updated > the MAINTAINERS file to both reflect current reality note the problem. > > I think your GCC 3.4 is busted. My GCC? What a strange turn of expression. I'm pretty sure the warning will also happen with your gcc. Nope, 2.95.3 and 3.3.5 are fine. And as Andreas Schwab there's a GCC bug report for this problem. Alas, this is not an ideal world where compiler warnings involve no false positives. This will probably be fixed eventually, either on the GCC side, or by adding a workaround to BFD. Meanwhile I want us to take notice that the fact that vax and m68k are in pretty good shape and that listing them as broken in MAINTAINERS is no indication that there is something wrong with those targets themselves. Mark