From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30330 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2006 18:44:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 30319 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2006 18:44:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:44:29 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EzIIF-0002iH-06; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:44:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1 Message-ID: <20060118184426.GA10381@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060117211914.GA13055@nevyn.them.org> <39BD9F7D-F512-40EA-804A-DBE9BAC97E2B@apple.com> <20060118173155.GM28863@synopsys.com> <8f2776cb0601181040s4970ce9es15ebdcae50dccda2@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0601181040s4970ce9es15ebdcae50dccda2@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:40:55AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > The message below is kind of odd. We do use -Wall No, we don't. See the comments in configure.ac about this. >, so if the pointer > sign warning will be printed when -Wall is specified, we'll still need > to pass an explicit argument to disable it. Which doesn't exactly > take the decision out of our hands, as we were hoping. > > I think we should decide, for ourselves, whether we think the warning > is helpful or not, and then not be demure about doing the necessary > GCC stuff to enable or disable it. Hoping GCC would answer the > question for us was dopey. Sorry, that wasn't my goal. My goal with forwarding this to the GCC list was independent of what GDB should do - as Joe wrote, the GCC SC made a promise to RMS that I'm trying to make sure doesn't slip through the cracks. > I think there's some documentation value in reserving gdb_byte for > binary blobs and char for host-format text. It wouldn't have been > worth it before, but at this point we've got fixes for almost all > those warnings in place; we can't get those hours back, so the > cost/benefit is different now. So I think we should continue to > request the warning. Almost all of those warnings on some targets, btw. An ARM cross debugger has a whole new set of them. I don't know which option I prefer. Either way I'll probably clean up ARM soonish. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery