From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29161 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2013 17:58:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 29152 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Mar 2013 17:58:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:58:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6426C2E8C8; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10aQMn2qU3LR; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375342E8C2; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:58:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C1C7C15EA; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: "'Abid, Hafiz'" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: About New ARI warning Sun Mar 10 02:06:07 UTC 2013 in -D 2013-03-10-gmt Message-ID: <20130311175838.GI3264@adacore.com> References: <20130310020607.GA11887@sourceware.org> <1363003431.5561.0@abidh-ubunto1104> <007701ce1e66$0383f480$0a8bdd80$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <007701ce1e66$0383f480$0a8bdd80$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 Hi Pierre, > Should I: > 1) modify the comment to also list != and == That, or making it more explicit that the list is not exhaustive. > 2) extend the rule to also check for other binary operators? I think it would make sense, yes. Thanks again for taking care of this part of the project... -- Joel