From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 126002 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2018 12:48:29 -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 125936 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jan 2018 12:48:17 -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= 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; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 12:48:15 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ecsZ9-0005iZ-3r for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 07:48:12 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51541) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ecsZ9-0005iS-0I; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 07:48:11 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3746 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ecsZ7-0008VT-Ue; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 07:48:10 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 12:48:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83r2qksnm2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: dj@redhat.com CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <833733x2zj.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200) Subject: Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <833733x2zj.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/msg00422.txt.bz2 > 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? TIA