From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23973-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25734 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2006 20:18:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 25726 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2006 20:18:47 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:18:45 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-21-9.inter.net.il [80.230.21.9]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id CMT36192 (AUTH halo1); 	Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:51:28 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:29:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ulkxd71rv.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20060118190120.GA11089@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:01:20 -0500)
Subject: Re: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
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/msg00173.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:01:20 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Nah - my plan is to forget the whole thing if we decide to, but no one
> wants to decide.

I don't know about ``no one'', I think I already said that I
considered the rest of these warnings useless annoyances.

> At the moment I'm not convinced that running around hammering on the
> rest of them is a worthwhile use of our time, though.

FWIW, I think it isn't a worthwhile use of our time.