From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11110 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2008 20:07:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 11102 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Dec 2008 20:07:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:06:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBFK6i5u008734 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:06:44 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mBFK6hta024219 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:06:43 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-69.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.69]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBFK6gU1016642; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:06:43 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 093D2508028; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:06:41 -0700 (MST) To: "Jim Blandy" Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Building GDB under GLIBC 2.8 References: <8f2776cb0812121804n1008f921h3898bb7bda1581c9@mail.gmail.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0812121804n1008f921h3898bb7bda1581c9@mail.gmail.com> (Jim Blandy's message of "Fri\, 12 Dec 2008 18\:04\:47 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jim" == Jim Blandy writes: Jim> The latest version of Ubuntu (Intrepid Ibex) includes a GLIBC that Jim> attaches the warn_unused_result attribute to many C library functions. Jim> The archer project doesn't use the -Wno-unused flag, so I needed to Jim> fix these to build archer. It seemed to me that submitting the patch Jim> upstream would be the most helpful thing to do. Thanks. One nit from me: Jim> +static void Jim> +check_syscall (const char *msg, int result) Jim> +{ I believe that these days we're asking for intro comments on all new functions. I can't approve or reject this, but according to MAINTAINERS, you can :) Tom