From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67379 invoked by alias); 2 May 2016 17:03:23 -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 67362 invoked by uid 89); 2 May 2016 17:03:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:656 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; Mon, 02 May 2016 17:03:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 819727F6A6; Mon, 2 May 2016 17:03:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u42H3A8w026026; Mon, 2 May 2016 13:03:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb] Fix -Wparentheses warnings To: Kyrill Tkachov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <57237D3A.2050203@foss.arm.com> <55918437-8fb0-3d99-645a-667339829bc8@redhat.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <5bafc0fe-a620-ab2b-82c6-4ba77fd9a7eb@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 17:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55918437-8fb0-3d99-645a-667339829bc8@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On 05/02/2016 11:57 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 04/29/2016 04:26 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > Bah. That's written that way exactly to avoid dangling if/else > problems. > > I think it'd be reasonable for gcc to not warn when the if/else > came from a macro, as users of the macro can't possibly be confused > in the way the warning intents to help with. I'd call it a > gcc regression. > ... >> Is this ok to commit? > > OK. I suspect this may be the same as PR20029: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20029 Could you push it to the gdb-7.11-branch branch too, please? Thanks, Pedro Alves