From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4660 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2012 18:33:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 4616 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2012 18:33:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 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; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:32:54 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9OIWrOn024735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:32:54 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9OIWqPY027026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:32:53 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] bitpos expansion summary reloaded References: <20120927190053.1e7de264@spoyarek> <20120929173938.GA2987@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120929181141.GA4009@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120930065211.GA21118@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121003184155.03dceed4@spoyarek> <20121003195627.GA17283@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121004071314.GA4292@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20121021130546.02ea680c@spoyarek> <20121023191049.GA17307@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20121023191049.GA17307@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:10:49 +0200") Message-ID: <87hapj90vf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (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: 2012-10/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> (1) Check in the patchset as is while it is known not all type safety Jan> regressions have been caught. Jan> (2) Fix all -Wconversion warnings, either by cast or by type extension, Jan> depending on the case. But this can be done anytime later. I think we should start with (1). My rationale is that I consider the current patch set an improvement. It may not be perfect, but it doesn't hurt anything, and I think the various threads have shown that perfecting it as a precondition for checking it in is too much to ask. I was less convinced about (2), but while writing up my reasons why, I convinced myself that it is a good idea. It will let us notice new introductions of value truncation problems. We may make mistakes while fixing the current code, specifically by introducing incorrect casts -- but whenever we do this, we are not regressing anything, all we are doing is hiding a latent bug from a warning that we currently do not enable. That is, no real change. This patch may make gdb uglier, in that we'll most likely add many new casts to the code. I think the resulting additional safety is probably worth it. I'm curious what your opinion is. I didn't see it in your message. Tom