Re: fixes for type-punning warnings in GCC 4.1

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-02-10T01:39:32Z

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:32:48PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:48:11AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jan 22, 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The output is always a DOUBLEST. I don't know of any reason why we
> >> > should enable HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE if we can't printf and scanf them; would
> >> > this be simpler in that case? Don't make DOUBLEST something we can't
> >> > scan or print.
> >>
> >> Sounds good to me. Ok to install?
>
> > Well, it's not right as-is; you need to look at the other uses of
> > HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE.
>
> Did. The other uses of HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE are correct, since they do
> not assume DOUBLEST is long double and they make no attempts at
> printing long doubles directly.

Disagree; did you read the bit of my message that you snipped?
doublest.c jumps through unnecessary hoops casting to long double and
back to handle a DOUBLEST if this is defined.

> > Would you mind terribly fixing that, adding a changelog, and leaving
> > out the tui-data change for now?
>
> gdb won't build without the tui-data change. What's wrong with adding
> the temporary fix now, such that it builds, until someone with a
> better understanding can go ahead and re-engineer the data structure
> correctly?

Sorry, use -Wno-error if you're in that much of a hurry. I even
offered to take care of it for you. If your fix goes in, it will never
leave; we have plenty of experience with FIXMEs in GDB to back that up,
I think.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery