From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36495 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2018 18:25:12 -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 36476 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2018 18:25:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:xnpo69w, U*gdb-patches, gdbpatchessourcewareorg, sk:gdb-pat X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:25:10 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ebVv1-0000XQ-Rw for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:08 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:45626) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ebVv1-0000XM-O4; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:07 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1701 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ebVv0-0001M0-Vh; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:25:00 -0000 Message-Id: <831sipy83q.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: DJ Delorie CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from DJ Delorie on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:00:48 -0500) Subject: Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00315.txt.bz2 > From: DJ Delorie > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:00:48 -0500 > > > I think that warning is valid - the host has a 32-bit limit to file > sizes (off_t) but it's trying to read a 64-bit offset (in that clause). > It's warning you that you won't be able to handle files as large as the > field implies. If 32-bit off_t cannot handle this, then perhaps this file (or that function) should not be compiled for a 32-bit host?