From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32569 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2014 06:18:29 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 32555 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jan 2014 06:18:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GARBLED_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:18:27 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1W6DcM-0007L8-TI from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:18:22 -0800 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:18:22 -0800 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:17:00 -0800 Message-ID: <52E0B3AC.8000207@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:18:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: GDB Administrator , Subject: Re: New ARI warning Tue Jan 21 01:52:58 UTC 2014 References: <20140121015258.GA9519@sourceware.org> <20140123060229.GH4762@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20140123060229.GH4762@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00890.txt.bz2 On 01/23/2014 02:02 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Does anyone understand this violation? > > This is what the declaration in cli/cli-decode.h looks like: > > /* The user needs to be warned that this is a deprecated command. > The user should only be warned the first time a command is > used. */ > > unsigned int deprecated_warn_user : 1; > > This bit is set when a command is deprecated via deprecate_cmd, > and seems to be an integral part of how we manage deprecated > commands. > > So I'm wondering if the warning may have been about something else? > Or maybe I'm missing something? I am not familiar with ARI, but looks like it is a false alarm of deprecated rule. ARI thinks "deprecated_warn_user" is a deprecated "warn_user", but it isn't. -- Yao (齐尧)