From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23399 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2012 20:06:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 23367 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Oct 2012 20:06:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 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; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:06:40 +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 q9IK6d0R001539 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:06:39 -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 q9IK6cD0015653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:06:39 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix bug in compare_breakpoints References: <87sj9c28o1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <507FC362.5070906@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <507FC362.5070906@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:52:50 +0100") Message-ID: <87lif3y27l.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/msg00343.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> Eh! Shame that gcc doesn't warn on this ("comparison always false", Pedro> I gather?). Sounds like something that shouldn't be hard for the Pedro> compiler to detect. IWBN to have gcc PRs for these issues. I filed http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54979 for the comparison issue. The other problem is caught by -Wempty-body, which we don't enable. It yields a number of warnings and would require a coding style change from: if (blah) ; to if (blah) { } That would be fine with me, and I'd be happy to write the patch if there is general agreement. Tom