From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41151 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2015 18:12:49 -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 41136 invoked by uid 89); 14 Aug 2015 18:12:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no 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; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:12:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6BDD37258D; Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7EICjm8019602 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:12:46 -0400 Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed Aug 12 01:53:55 UTC 2015 To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20150812015355.GA61373@sourceware.org> <20150814180556.GN22245@adacore.com> From: Keith Seitz Message-ID: <55CE2F9D.4030001@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150814180556.GN22245@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 On 08/14/2015 11:05 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I'm wondering what other people think of these. On the one hand, > I'm pretty sure the ARI check is too simplistic and N/A for > this code. On the other hand, I'd like to think that our long > term goal/hope is to have a clean ARI report someday. > > We could tell the ARI that these are OK by adding explicit ARI: > markers, but it seems to me that it'd be just as simple to change > the name of the parameter for each macro. I have it on my plate to address this after BuildBot stops harassing me. :-) My inclination was to fix gdb_ari.sh to recognize this, but I'm just as happy to simply rename the parameter to "P". [It's a lot less work, too!] Keith