From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 109214 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2020 02:48:24 -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 109159 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jan 2020 02:48:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 02:48:20 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D6D21E4C2; Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:48:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Enable -Wmissing-declarations diagnostic To: Tom Tromey , Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200110220027.26450-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <87d0bqexxj.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 07:06:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87d0bqexxj.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 On 2020-01-11 11:54 a.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > > Simon> This is v2 of: > Simon> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-11/msg00805.html > > Simon> Although a few patches of the original series were merged, since they > Simon> were valid fixes in any case. > > I read through the series. > > I think this warning would be good to have, because it can help detect > bugs. It's maybe mildly unfortunate that we have to have the first > patch, but at the same time it's not that much noise in the end -- just > an extra line (typically) near the end of a file. The other patches all > seem desirable on their own terms. > > So, I think you should check it in. Thanks again for the tip to finish the last patch. This is v2, and v1 was sent a while ago, so I figure that if somebody was against it, they would have spoken up by now. So I'll rebase and push it. Sorry in advance for the breakages on the configs I am not able to build easily. Simon