From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124460 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2018 05:01:33 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 124236 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2018 05:01:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:U*dj X-HELO: mail-yb0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-yb0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-yb0-f173.google.com) (209.85.213.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 05:01:14 +0000 Received: by mail-yb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h9so2091149ybg.10 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oGP47OsiMMfD2/gNV1wxV7o/PA3e6crPIcgPAZrsr7o=; b=V/bRbQWyTW9HwoV4D/wRyEeHEdNHNkStN/12JV9LVm5q1/sIelD689vril+rl1PrKt 9egQpZ4+TayLU/lTIJU6lCg7mB3vmoqt7wUfFHBiVhjxfh9AXFyyAnUQo+6G3Dl0VaAE k+z4khEIlOzCTC5sn2+8Z/1YLph68j1zXXN9UYsXAK2WnOjnBj8cZdQ47IIpKOlFe8DZ TC2xNtVQCGPxV1Vm+McmD0Wy+/N+2MJVWb1oIYzYecF7PG/hN33B35XuVYmZatLnkb89 eXPkNBe8NjTvOTmYGz/Z7MVh5WfbajTaTP1dECDYq4pcUK+oQsd7qtyTPXYK33sOwJtX wLdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfp4qYSTkpU5YM8Pv6j68ki/KzFoB124HY4bBzFHCNvtnPFMFxc qIr2R3z/9NdOYS+jBziSOf5HO+xSTtYvxUYMZFoCIA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224BKDRR2tPm1qwMETxrJ/Meabysi2DyL82Pj26bYNdy22GUnNJ3uTU+9lMx7bA0v7hFLugDpFMgsKXTkr5wkog= X-Received: by 10.37.111.194 with SMTP id k185mr3469624ybc.4.1516510872030; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.203.129 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83r2qksnm2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <833733x2zj.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2qksnm2.fsf@gnu.org> From: "Ian Lance Taylor via gdb-patches" Reply-To: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 05:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200 >> From: Eli Zaretskii >> CC: schwab@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> > From: DJ Delorie >> > Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:47:49 -0500 >> > >> > Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > >> > > DJ, would the following semi-kludgey workaround be acceptable? >> > >> > It would be no worse than what we have now, if the only purpose is to >> > avoid a warning. >> > >> > Ideally, we would check to see if we're discarding non-zero values from >> > that offset, and not call the callback with known bogus data. I suppose >> > the usefulness of that depends on how often you'll encounter 4Gb+ xcoff64 >> > files on mingw32 ? >> >> The answer to that question is "never", AFAIU. > > So can the patch I proposed be applied, please? I committed the patch. Ian