From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id gMS2OX/VTWHoOAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:41:19 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id E26861EE25; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:41:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E24A1EDF0 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DC1385802E for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:41:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 77DC1385802E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1632490878; bh=8NOvYjOusjGTN/5nI4LBF+iRCnNXfiGnrRQ9x0kFVTU=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=eeUaPajW5KYAom3dma1vnJfgtr2Q8qv6KbWR3c8TK992Dx0AUZ/Um7+3/SCTU3NgU PE8+KgOHnIl/r4ydQc6P85KaLjPkVd4j/sLP+229oJdn18QQj3N8aFK1DRWPv2zaMn zj9+TLt/zTjmsJm/wGuHOW7L0btNYnQZfAsBibX0= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 875BA3858402 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:40:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 875BA3858402 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 18ODerRA027332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:40:58 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 18ODerRA027332 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2761C1EDF0; Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:40:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdbsupport: better detection of -Wmissing-prototypes support To: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210924122933.2714720-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <20210924131632.GC1900093@embecosm.com> Message-ID: <9ea18967-7c71-60a0-f265-a39634b335df@polymtl.ca> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 09:40:51 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210924131632.GC1900093@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:40:53 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-09-24 9:16 a.m., Andrew Burgess wrote: > It has been pointed out to me on IRC (thanks Simon), that this issue > is not GCC, but ccache: > > https://github.com/ccache/ccache/issues/738#issuecomment-740133374 > > So this patch certainly shouldn't go in as it is currently written. > > It's still pretty annoying seeing those warnings though, so I wonder > if we can consider having a work around for this ccache issue in the > GDB configure scripts? > > Maybe something as simple as setting CCACHE_DISABLE in the environment > prior to running the AM_GDB_WARNINGS checks? > > All ideas welcome... Either way would be fine with me: - to use AC_LINK_IFELSE all the time (I don't think the execution time would be significantly higher) - to set CCACHE_DISABLE during the execution of AM_GDB_WARNINGS Simon