From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15615 invoked by alias); 2 May 2005 16:50:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15486 invoked from network); 2 May 2005 16:50:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 May 2005 16:50:02 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j42Go2hD019741 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:50:02 -0700 Received: from [17.112.105.216] ([17.112.105.216]) by relay4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j42GnJiM024471; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <42765A10.5050603@apple.com> Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:50:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] note non-building architectures References: <42756233.5080809@gnu.org> <200505012332.j41NWMH0026515@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <42764DD6.3070902@gnu.org> <200505021635.j42GZHeH011543@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200505021635.j42GZHeH011543@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:57:10 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 19:11:47 -0400 > > From: Andrew Cagney > > > > As part of getting ready for GCC 4, I've found that a number of arches > > don't build with gcc-3.4 when using gdb_mbuild.sh. As an aid, and to > > stop me and presumably others from going round in circles, I've updated > > the MAINTAINERS file to both reflect current reality note the problem. > > > > I think your GCC 3.4 is busted. > > My GCC? What a strange turn of expression. I'm pretty sure the warning > will also happen with your gcc. > >Nope, 2.95.3 and 3.3.5 are fine. And as Andreas Schwab there's a GCC >bug report for this problem. Alas, this is not an ideal world where >compiler warnings involve no false positives. > >This will probably be fixed eventually, either on the GCC side, or by >adding a workaround to BFD. Meanwhile I want us to take notice that >the fact that vax and m68k are in pretty good shape and that listing >them as broken in MAINTAINERS is no indication that there is something >wrong with those targets themselves. > Perhaps the status note could be enhanced to say "builds with -Wno-error" or some such. Stan