Re: RFC: Warning fixes

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:58:28 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> Any comments on these, or shall I commit them?  Regardless of the configure
> patch, we might as well fix the bugs.

Some of these are really scary.  Can you check for regressions on i386 Linux?

The only thing that bothers me is this one:

> Index: signals/signals.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/signals/signals.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.11
> diff -u -p -r1.11 signals.c
> --- signals/signals.c	28 Nov 2006 19:45:07 -0000	1.11
> +++ signals/signals.c	28 Dec 2006 19:42:04 -0000
> @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static struct {
>  char *
>  target_signal_to_string (enum target_signal sig)
>  {
> -  if ((sig >= TARGET_SIGNAL_FIRST) && (sig <= TARGET_SIGNAL_LAST))
> +  if (sig <= TARGET_SIGNAL_LAST)
>      return signals[sig].string;
>    else
>      return signals[TARGET_SIGNAL_UNKNOWN].string;
> @@ -229,8 +229,7 @@ target_signal_to_string (enum target_sig
>  char *
>  target_signal_to_name (enum target_signal sig)
>  {
> -  if ((sig >= TARGET_SIGNAL_FIRST) && (sig <= TARGET_SIGNAL_LAST)
> -      && signals[sig].name != NULL)
> +  if (sig <= TARGET_SIGNAL_LAST && signals[sig].name != NULL)
>      return signals[sig].name;
>    else
>      /* I think the code which prints this will always print it along

ISO C clearly states that enumeration constants have type 'int', so
sig could be negative, and we defenitely want to catch that case.  If
GCC thinks it knows that (sig >= TARGET_SIGNAL_FIRST), I think it is
being too smart for its own good.

Mark