From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20676 invoked by alias); 7 May 2012 19:36:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 20578 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2012 19:36:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 May 2012 19:36:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q47Ja0Kr001930 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 7 May 2012 15:36:00 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q47JZwfM008968 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 7 May 2012 15:35:59 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Tristan Gingold Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] Emit a warning for ineffective set VAR = EXP command References: <8781499A-A489-42D0-80B1-75136331DBDB@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 19:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tristan Gingold's message of "Mon, 7 May 2012 12:30:19 +0200") Message-ID: <874nrryeap.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tristan" == Tristan Gingold writes: Tristan> I am not opposed to disable warnings for pre/post inc/dec. Tristan> But this usage is dubious (the help explicitly mentions VAR=EXP !) Tristan> Opinion ? Either way is fine by me. I suppose it seems a little pedantic to warn about the ++ operator. Tom