Re: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:01:20 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:58:59AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > On 1/18/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> 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.

Let's forget about them.  The mostly bogus signed vs. unsigned char
ones dominate the useful warnings for the other integers.

Is there any reason not to commit my -Werror patch now (with the
-Wno-pointer-sign)?

Mark