From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] bitpos expansion summary reloaded
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y5iygrrk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121021130546.02ea680c@spoyarek> (Siddhesh Poyarekar's message of "Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:05:46 +0530")
>>>>> "Siddhesh" == Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@redhat.com> writes:
Siddhesh> Here is a fix on top of the bitpos fixes based on the warnings
Siddhesh> generated from gcc -Wconversion. I have also attached the
Siddhesh> report for review; I have not rebased since the last
Siddhesh> submission to ensure that the line numbers don't go awry. Most
Siddhesh> of the extra warnings were either unrelated or were the length
Siddhesh> parameter to (store|extract)_(un)?signed_integer functions
Siddhesh> that are safe.
Siddhesh> I have also verified that this does not cause any regressions in the
Siddhesh> testsuite and that the gcc warnings generated after this were safe.
IIUC, this patch fixes some subset of -Wconversion warnings but leaves
the rest untouched.
Would it be very hard or ugly if we just tried to fix them all, and then
enabled -Wconversion in configure? Aside from maybe some code ugliness,
I wonder what the downsides would be.
The reason I ask is that I'm concerned about our ability to maintain
this change properly, and I wonder if this would be a cheap way to
handle the more mechanical aspects.
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-22 20:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-27 13:33 Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-09-28 11:20 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-09-28 11:40 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-09-28 12:06 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-09-28 12:19 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-09-29 17:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-09-29 18:12 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-09-30 6:52 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-01 5:21 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-10-01 6:14 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-03 13:12 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-10-03 18:38 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-04 7:20 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-10-03 19:56 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-04 7:13 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-21 7:36 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-10-22 20:45 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2012-10-23 1:34 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-23 1:58 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-23 2:29 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-10-23 2:37 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-23 2:38 ` Tom Tromey
2012-10-23 19:11 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-24 18:33 ` Tom Tromey
2012-10-24 18:55 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-24 20:18 ` Tom Tromey
2012-10-25 15:54 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-10-25 16:52 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-11-06 20:01 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-11-07 13:48 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-11-13 19:46 ` Tom Tromey
2012-11-13 19:55 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-11-01 15:24 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-11-01 16:56 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y5iygrrk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=siddhesh@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox