From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17555 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2009 19:46:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 17544 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2009 19:46:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_JMF_BR,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:46:17 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KRB00300CS7JK00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:46:10 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.70.84.229]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KRB0061MDKX2O80@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:46:10 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:46:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: A strange gcc behavior, and an argument against -Wno-unused In-reply-to: <200910101950.27107.pedro@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com, msnyder@vmware.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83d44vjaiy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4ACFD8B7.4090902@vmware.com> <83eipbjdpf.fsf@gnu.org> <200910101950.27107.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:50:26 +0100 > Cc: tromey@redhat.com, > dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com, > msnyder@vmware.com > > On Saturday 10 October 2009 19:39:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Thanks, that's old enough to be useful for most, if not all, of those > > who build GDB. > > To be clear, FRT: I don't think it really matters which version > a "positive" -W warning switch went in (-Wno-* switches matter, > because otherwise we wouldn't be silencing a build breaking > warning on older gcc's we may care about). Even if a switch is > found only on more recent gcc's, if it uncovers bugs, it's > useful. People using older gcc's just don't get the new > warnings, as gdb's build system takes care of confirming the > switch works at all before using it. Understood. However, I was thinking about exotic architectures that don't get built by the global maintainers, and so it is important that those builds actually have this switch on and working, rather than silently turned off due to non-support.