From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20496 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2012 01:34:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 20331 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2012 01:34:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:34:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9N1Yid9014670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:34:44 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-77.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.77]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9N1Yd1m000992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:34:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 01:34:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] bitpos expansion summary reloaded Message-ID: <20121023013438.GA13413@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120927190053.1e7de264@spoyarek> <20120929173938.GA2987@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120929181141.GA4009@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120930065211.GA21118@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121003184155.03dceed4@spoyarek> <20121003195627.GA17283@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121004071314.GA4292@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121021130546.02ea680c@spoyarek> <87y5iygrrk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y5iygrrk.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: 2012-10/txt/msg00393.txt.bz2 On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:45:35 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > IIUC, this patch fixes some subset of -Wconversion warnings but leaves > the rest untouched. Yes. The goal of all this work has been to automatically separate out which of these warnings are safe and which are not. > Would it be very hard or ugly if we just tried to fix them all, and then > enabled -Wconversion in configure? Aside from maybe some code ugliness, > I wonder what the downsides would be. So far I did not consider such task as doable. This work was about ~660 warnings while I have checked -Wconversion is at least 2500 warnings to solve. With the FSF ChangeLogs and reviewing rules the situation is more difficult. > The reason I ask is that I'm concerned about our ability to maintain > this change properly, and I wonder if this would be a cheap way to > handle the more mechanical aspects. Cheap for future reviewing. But more expensive for the initial change. Thanks, Jan