From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30391 invoked by alias); 31 May 2005 20:45:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30371 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2005 20:45:29 -0000 Received: from legolas.inter.net.il (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 May 2005 20:45:29 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-244-238.inter.net.il [84.228.244.238]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id EMR24177 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 31 May 2005 23:45:16 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 22:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Paul Schlie CC: manjo@austin.ibm.com, m.m.kettenis@alumnus.utwente.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Paul Schlie on Tue, 31 May 2005 12:06:28 -0400) Subject: Re: [RFC] solib-svr4.c gdb_byteised. Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00667.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:06:28 -0400 > From: Paul Schlie > > arguably it seems that the best remedy would be to correct GCC, not attempt > to appease it I'm with you on this one, but somehow I doubt you will be able to convince the GCC maintainers. It's worth a try nonetheless.