From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-26682-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30661 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2003 04:25:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30654 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2003 04:25:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.2.227)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 2003 04:25:51 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D4AB72B7F; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:25:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3F4C32C3.7020504@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 04:25:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>
Cc: Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/minor] fix compile warning in linux-proc.c
References: <20030821051149.GB21328@tausq.org> <yf2ad9xhedj.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00470.txt.bz2

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:11:49 -0700, Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org> said:
> 
> 
>> While trying to get hppa-linux building with -Werror, I came across one
>> warning in linux-proc.c that's triggered by -Wformat-nonliteral. This 
>> patch fixes it if anybody cares :)
> 
> 
> I'm seeing this on i686-pc-linux-gnu, too.  The patch looks fine to me
> (though I'm not in a position to approve it); if I were in a
> hyper-refactoring mode, I suppose I'd be tempted to create new
> functions print_header_format_32, print_data_fmt_32,
> print_header_format_64, print_data_fmt_64 defined along these lines:

David, feel free to check it in.  A comment mentioning that this should 
use a generic (and not yet existing) local_address_string() method would 
be useful.

The casts don't phase me.  The conflicting "%#10lx" and "%#18lx" do but 
again not desperatly.  That local_address_string custom method.

Andrew


> static void
> print_data_fmt_64 (unsigned long addr, unsigned long endaddr,
>                    int size, unsigned int offset, const char *filename) {
>   printf_filtered ("  %#181x %#181x %#10x %#10x %7s\n",
>                    addr, endaddr, size, offset, filename);
> }
> 
> but I don't think it's really urgent to do so.  Hmm; maybe we really
> should do that, at least for the data strings, because it gets rid of
> casts?  Andrew, what do you think?