From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23762 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2006 21:08:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 23751 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2006 21:08:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:08:49 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-4-200.inter.net.il [80.230.4.200]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CMO11201 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:04:31 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060117202323.GA11359@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:23:23 -0500) Subject: Re: [ob] More warnings; Call for assistance Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060117151730.GA2420@nevyn.them.org> <20060117202323.GA11359@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:23:23 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 10:15:27PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:17:31 -0500 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > > > /space/fsf/commit/src/gdb/expprint.c:180: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'current_language->la_printstr' differ in signedness > > > > Is it really worth your trouble fixing this? AFAIK, the next release > > of GCC is supposed to turn this warning off by default, so why fix > > something that ain't broken in the first place, if it's gonna bug only > > those users who have GCC 4.0.x? > > Do you have a reference for this GCC change? I have this: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2005-12/msg01743.html I don't know if this counts as a reference, but it's good enough for me ;-) > Also, do you think the warning is useless? I think it's too pedantic; I think it's a false alarm 99.99% of the time. But if you think I'm wrong, please describe situations where this warning would point to a real trouble. > If you think it's useless, I'll just stop, and we'll go with Mark's > patch to disable it. Hmm.. were you fixing only this precise warning? I thought I've seen other, more serious warnings as well fixed by your recent changes.