From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23982-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 24283 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2006 00:50:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 24273 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jan 2006 00:50:49 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.192)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:50:44 +0000
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x3so90093nzd         for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.15.35 with SMTP id s35mr6061122nzi;         Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.2.42 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <8f2776cb0601181650r71a193b7refdf1616a6ba760@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:01:00 -0000
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1
In-Reply-To: <20060118190120.GA11089@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> 	 <8f2776cb0601181058r23b810dg9d926e40f07d0704@mail.gmail.com> 	 <20060118190120.GA11089@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/msg00182.txt.bz2

On 1/18/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> Nah - my plan is to forget the whole thing if we decide to, but no one
> wants to decide.

I think we should encourage the use of gdb_byte for binary blobs in
new code (say, at patch review time).  But it sounds like you estimate
there's still a ways to go to get target-specific code in line.  Since
this concurrence between you and Eli:

>> Shall we discard the remaining (more minor) cases and turn off this
>> warning?
>
>I think so, yes.  We have better uses for our energy right now.

wasn't conditioned on GCC's future choices, I'm happy to join it.