From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9951 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2012 18:52:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 9935 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2012 18:52:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,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, 02 Nov 2012 18:52:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA2IqfAm008551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:52:41 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA2Iqesd010694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 14:52:40 -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> <87lif3y27l.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87lif2wi6c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87lif2wi6c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:16:59 -0600") Message-ID: <87r4obon0n.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: 2012-11/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> The other problem is caught by -Wempty-body, which we don't enable. It Tom> yields a number of warnings and would require a coding style change Tom> from: Tom> [...] Tom> FWIW, here's the patch. Comments appreciated. It's been a couple of weeks and there haven't been any objections. I am checking this in. Tom