From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 65583 invoked by alias); 6 May 2015 11:47:30 -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 65556 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2015 11:47:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 06 May 2015 11:47:29 +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 t46BlRD2017199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 6 May 2015 07:47:27 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t46BlPTj031357; Wed, 6 May 2015 07:47:26 -0400 Message-ID: <5549FF4D.5040805@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 11:47:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] compile: New compile printf References: <20150411194322.29128.52477.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20150411194429.29128.61494.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <5540FE29.5050004@redhat.com> <20150503140605.GC18394@host1.jankratochvil.net> <5549EB71.1070101@redhat.com> <20150506112954.GA19264@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20150506112954.GA19264@host1.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 On 05/06/2015 12:29 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 06 May 2015 12:22:41 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> I understand that. But what I was asking is (after the series is wholly >> pushed), what is the advantage of "(gdb) compile printf" >> over "(gdb) compile print printf (...)" and "(gdb) call printf (...)". > > This patch, that is > [PATCH v3 8/9] compile: New compile printf > without the part > [PATCH v3 9/9] compile: compile printf: gdbserver support > is really just that > (gdb) compile print printf (...) > and the patch is also therefore very simple. > > According to Phil - roughly, not citing - such 'compile printf' was simple > enough to code to make it worth such a feature, despite it has many > shortcomings. OK, since we don't have a real use case of calling the inferior's printf (other than because it's seemingly simple), I'd rather we avoid it and do as outlined in the previous email. >> Agreed on the latter, but the question really is: why do we need >> "set compile-printf-args" instead of using "set compile-args" for >> all expression evaluation through the compiler? >> Shouldn't "-Werror=format" be in "set compile-args" too? > > Why not, this is a matter of opinion. IMO cc itself should have -Werror by > default as otherwise by default it is willing to knowingly produce crashing > programs. The only safe warnings are -Wunused* ones and maybe few others. > So again, this patch tries to make minimal changes to what is the current > established wrong standard. The minimal change then is putting -Werror=format in "set compile-args". Sounds like you're OK with that; let's do it. Thanks, Pedro Alves