From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18915 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2012 19:01:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 18907 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2012 19:01:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:01:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1AJ16Bl009103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:01:06 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-26.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.26]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1AJ12qP014873 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:01:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:01:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [no-commit-intention] Naive unnamed fields for main_type [Re: [patch] Fix gdb-gdb.py for flds_bnds copy-pastes] Message-ID: <20120210190102.GA9186@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120209092727.GA2664@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120209093119.GA2722@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120209151621.GB3474@adacore.com> <20120209153642.GA12261@host2.jankratochvil.net> <874nuyef9c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874nuyef9c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00216.txt.bz2 On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:04:47 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote: > I'm not sure that all these problems really represent C90 > incompatibilities. Some of them are GNU extensions either discovered by > configure (or did you reconfigure with those options?) Yes, it was built from `git clean -dfx'. > Jan> coff-x86_64.c:174:13: error: ISO C90 does not support ‘long long’ [-Werror=long-long] > > Definitely a real bug :) `long long' is apparently not supported by ISO C90 compilers, so it is a bug if GDB claims C90 compatibility. Or what do you mean? > Jan> error: ISO C forbids forward references to ‘enum’ types [-Werror=edantic] > > Do these really say 'edantic' (missing 'p')? > If so, could you report it as a GCC bug? Checked now it is popular GCC PR c/44774. Thanks, Jan