From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24089 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2018 02:37:58 -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 24055 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jul 2018 02:37:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Joel, joel, brobecker, U*brobecker 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, 29 Jul 2018 02:37:55 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fjbaf-0005Oj-Rh for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 22:37:52 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:33392) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fjbaf-0005Od-Nf; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 22:37:49 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1093 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fjbaf-0005D5-67; Sat, 28 Jul 2018 22:37:49 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 02:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: <837eleu5q7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <83y3e834jw.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 19:13:39 +0300) Subject: Re: GDB 8.1.90 available for testing References: <20180704162202.C240286B57@joel.gnat.com> <83y3e834jw.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: 2018-07/txt/msg00754.txt.bz2 Ping! Should anything be done about the last warning I describe below? > Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 19:13:39 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > From: Joel Brobecker > > Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:22:02 -0700 (PDT) > > > > I have just finished creating the gdb-8.1.90 pre-release. > > It is available for download at the following location: > > > > ftp://sourceware.org/pub/gdb/snapshots/branch/gdb-8.1.90.tar.xz > > > > A gzip'ed version is also available: gdb-8.1.90.tar.gz. > > > > Please give it a test if you can and report any problems you might find. > > I've built this with mingw.org's MinGW. I found one problem in > libiberty (which I will report separately), and I saw 3 warnings while > compiling GDB sources: > > CXX infrun.o > In file included from infrun.c:26:0: > inferior.h: In function 'void handle_vfork_child_exec_or_exit(int)': > inferior.h:533:39: warning: '*((void*)(& maybe_restore_inferior)+20).scoped_restore_current_inferior::m_saved_inf' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] > { set_current_inferior (m_saved_inf); } > ^ > infrun.c:929:6: note: '*((void*)(& maybe_restore_inferior)+20).scoped_restore_current_inferior::m_saved_inf' was declared here > maybe_restore_inferior; > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > In file included from inferior.h:49:0, > from infrun.c:26: > progspace.h:285:47: warning: '*((void*)(& maybe_restore_inferior)+16).scoped_restore_current_program_space::m_saved_pspace' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized] > { set_current_program_space (m_saved_pspace); } > ^ > infrun.c:929:6: note: '*((void*)(& maybe_restore_inferior)+16).scoped_restore_current_program_space::m_saved_pspace' was declared here > maybe_restore_inferior; > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Same warnings were in GDB 8.1; ignored. > > CXX symfile.o > symfile.c: In function 'void set_objfile_default_section_offset(objfile*, const section_addr_info&, CORE_ADDR)': > symfile.c:2114:14: warning: types may not be defined in a for-range-declaration > for (const struct other_sections *objf_sect : objf_addrs_sorted) > ^~~~~~ > > The first two I saw in GDB 8.1 and reported back in January. I > believe the conclusion was that we disregard these warnings? > > But what about the 3rd one?