From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17270 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2006 19:01:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 17262 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2006 19:01:25 -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 19:01:23 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EzIYa-0002ta-PY for gdb@sourceware.org; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:01:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1 Message-ID: <20060118190120.GA11089@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060117211914.GA13055@nevyn.them.org> <39BD9F7D-F512-40EA-804A-DBE9BAC97E2B@apple.com> <20060118173155.GM28863@synopsys.com> <8f2776cb0601181040s4970ce9es15ebdcae50dccda2@mail.gmail.com> <20060118184426.GA10381@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0601181058r23b810dg9d926e40f07d0704@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0601181058r23b810dg9d926e40f07d0704@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/msg00169.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:58:59AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > On 1/18/06, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > 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. > > D'oh. You're right, of course. > > > 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. > > Okay. I'd gotten the impression from your conversation with Eli that > the plan was to just forget the whole thing if future GCC's were going > to drop the warning. Nah - my plan is to forget the whole thing if we decide to, but no one wants to decide. You and I and a couple of others in the past have squashed most of these warnings in GDB. At the moment I'm not convinced that running around hammering on the rest of them is a worthwhile use of our time, though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery