From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26784 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2012 16:27:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 26762 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Aug 2012 16:27:46 -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,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:27:33 +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 q7HGRXRA014933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:27:33 -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 q7HGRWj2032255 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:27:33 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: "gp \>\> \"gdb-patches\@sourceware.org ml\"" Subject: Re: [RFA 2/3] c++/13356: set/show check type References: <502D54CD.1050405@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:27:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <502D54CD.1050405@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:15:09 -0700") Message-ID: <87ehn5lc0b.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (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: 2012-08/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> I've introduced a new badness level for this conversion, and return it Keith> when strict type checking is disabled. Most of the rest of the patch Keith> is the "new" set/show check type command and tests. Documentation is Keith> in the next patch. Ok. Thanks for doing this. Also, please send a follow-up to the gcc thread when you check it in. Tom