From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32622 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2012 19:16:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 32614 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2012 19:16:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:16:01 +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 qBJJFrJE023011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:15:53 -0500 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 qBJJFpex005076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:15:52 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Andreas Tobler Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] make older gcc happy mips-tdep.c References: <50D1FF7F.7060303@fgznet.ch> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <50D1FF7F.7060303@fgznet.ch> (Andreas Tobler's message of "Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:55:11 +0100") Message-ID: <87ip7xontk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.90 (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: 2012-12/txt/msg00713.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Tobler writes: Andreas> 2012-12-19 Andreas Tobler Andreas> * mips-tdep.c (mips_deal_with_atomic_sequence): Initialize Andreas> branch_bp to keep gcc happy. This is ok, but I'm pretty surprised that the problem is here and not in micromips_deal_with_atomic_sequence. The latter looks more like the kind of usage that would provoke warnings from gcc. Tom