From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B88BC3858D35 for ; Sat, 30 May 2020 14:47:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org B88BC3858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (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 40EC51E791; Sat, 30 May 2020 10:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/7] hurd: make function cast stronger To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Thomas Schwinge , thomas@schwinge.name, bug-hurd@gnu.org References: <20200529220049.gm7vt7gvtw7if6lg@function> <20200529220153.63gej54cam7itzmk@function> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 10:47:50 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200529220153.63gej54cam7itzmk@function> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 14:47:52 -0000 On 2020-05-29 6:01 p.m., Samuel Thibault wrote: > Fixes > > process_reply_S.c:104:23: error: function called through a non-compatible type [-Werror] > 104 | OutP->RetCode = (*(kern_return_t (*)(mach_port_t, kern_return_t)) S_proc_setmsgport_reply) (In0P->Head.msgh_request_port, In0P- > > gdb/ChangeLog: > > 2020-05-29 Samuel Thibault > > * reply_mig_hack.awk (Error return): Cast function through > void *, to bypass compiler function call check. If you are silencing a compiler warning, please explain why it is safe to do so. Why are we calling a function in a non-compatible way, is it a warning false positive? Because just like that, it just sounds like we are passing the wrong arguments and it should not be fixed by just silencing the warning, but by fixing the call. Simon