From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-46754-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14800 invoked by alias); 28 Dec 2006 22:56:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 14792 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Dec 2006 22:56:21 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:56:17 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBSMu61f022473; 	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:56:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id kBSMu65R022410; 	Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:56:06 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:56:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200612282256.kBSMu65R022410@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: drow@false.org
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20061228195828.GA18628@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:58:28 -0500)
Subject: Re: RFC: Warning fixes
References:  <20061228195828.GA18628@nevyn.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00335.txt.bz2

> 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