From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27553 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2006 18:41:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 27544 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2006 18:41:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:40:59 +0000 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so8126nzd for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.2.24 with SMTP id e24mr587037nzi; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.2.42 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:40:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0601181040s4970ce9es15ebdcae50dccda2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:44:00 -0000 From: Jim Blandy To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1 In-Reply-To: <20060118173155.GM28863@synopsys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060117211914.GA13055@nevyn.them.org> <39BD9F7D-F512-40EA-804A-DBE9BAC97E2B@apple.com> <20060118173155.GM28863@synopsys.com> 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/msg00166.txt.bz2 The message below is kind of odd. We do use -Wall, 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. 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. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joe Buck Date: Jan 18, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1 To: Mike Stump Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gcc@gcc.gnu.org On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:10:19AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jan 17, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >Someone's informed Richard Stallman that this (annoying) warning > >will not be > >enabled by default in GCC 4.1. > > >But, it currently seems to be. Should it be turned off before the > >release? > > The SC or Jim Wilson will know more than I. > > > If not, who told RMS it was? :-) > > Likewise. The Emacs developers were unhappy, so RMS complained to the SC, and there was a discussion. At first RMS just wanted the warning to appear only with --pedantic or -Wpointer-sign, but he was convinced that it should also appear with -Wall. So the answer is that, after consulting with some of the affected people (which is why you got mail, Mike) the SC told RMS that it would be changed. If it hasn't been done yet, then it's a release blocker, because it was a promise the SC made.