Re: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-18T18:44:35Z

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.

>, 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.

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.

> 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.

Almost all of those warnings on some targets, btw. An ARM cross
debugger has a whole new set of them. I don't know which option I
prefer. Either way I'll probably clean up ARM soonish.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery