From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23968-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14811 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2006 18:59:04 -0000
Received: (qmail 14803 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2006 18:59:03 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.198)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:59:01 +0000
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m22so12176nzf         for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.77.16 with SMTP id z16mr7125407nza;         Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.2.42 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:58:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8f2776cb0601181058r23b810dg9d926e40f07d0704@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:01:00 -0000
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>, gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1
In-Reply-To: <20060118184426.GA10381@nevyn.them.org>
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> 	 <8f2776cb0601181040s4970ce9es15ebdcae50dccda2@mail.gmail.com> 	 <20060118184426.GA10381@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2

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.