From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 112823 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2018 15:45:52 -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 112814 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2018 15:45:51 -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=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*r:2113 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; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 15:45:50 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edHoW-0001DR-MK for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:45:49 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:46558) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edHoW-0001DN-J6 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:45:44 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2113 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1edHoV-0000Eh-Lg for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 10:45:44 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 15:45:00 -0000 Message-Id: <834lnfrzae.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Ian Lance Taylor on Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:09 -0800) Subject: Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <833733x2zj.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2qksnm2.fsf@gnu.org> 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/msg00434.txt.bz2 > From: Ian Lance Taylor > Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:09 -0800 > Cc: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches , > gdb-patches > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200 > >> From: Eli Zaretskii > >> CC: schwab@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > >> > >> > From: DJ Delorie > >> > Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > >> > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:47:49 -0500 > >> > > >> > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> > > >> > > DJ, would the following semi-kludgey workaround be acceptable? > >> > > >> > It would be no worse than what we have now, if the only purpose is to > >> > avoid a warning. > >> > > >> > Ideally, we would check to see if we're discarding non-zero values from > >> > that offset, and not call the callback with known bogus data. I suppose > >> > the usefulness of that depends on how often you'll encounter 4Gb+ xcoff64 > >> > files on mingw32 ? > >> > >> The answer to that question is "never", AFAIU. > > > > So can the patch I proposed be applied, please? > > I committed the patch. So now that this patch is committed to upstream libiberty, is it OK to push it to GDB's copy of the library?