From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27339 invoked by alias); 3 May 2016 10:03:03 -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 27283 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2016 10:03:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1194 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 May 2016 10:02:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4C6AED24A; Tue, 3 May 2016 10:02:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u43A2ngW021536; Tue, 3 May 2016 06:02:50 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb] Fix -Wparentheses warnings To: Kyrill Tkachov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <57237D3A.2050203@foss.arm.com> <55918437-8fb0-3d99-645a-667339829bc8@redhat.com> <5bafc0fe-a620-ab2b-82c6-4ba77fd9a7eb@redhat.com> <572868DF.4080800@foss.arm.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 10:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <572868DF.4080800@foss.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 On 05/03/2016 10:01 AM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > On 02/05/16 18:03, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 05/02/2016 11:57 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> On 04/29/2016 04:26 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> Bah. That's written that way exactly to avoid dangling if/else >>> problems. >>> >>> I think it'd be reasonable for gcc to not warn when the if/else >>> came from a macro, as users of the macro can't possibly be confused >>> in the way the warning intents to help with. I'd call it a >>> gcc regression. >>> > > I see what you mean. > I filed GCC bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70922 > to get the GCC devs opinion. Thanks. I added some more info there. >> I suspect this may be the same as PR20029: >> >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20029 >> >> Could you push it to the gdb-7.11-branch branch too, please? > > I've pushed the patch to master and gdb-7.11-branch. Great, thanks again. > I've not used the sourceware bugzilla before (I don't have an account > there AFAIK), > so if someone could confirm that the warnings are fixed and close that > accordingly > I'd appreciate it. I'll take it from here. -- Pedro Alves