This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c
- From: "Ian Lance Taylor via gdb-patches" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:09 -0800
- Subject: Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <xnbmhsw6tm.fsf@greed.delorie.com> <833733x2zj.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2qksnm2.fsf@gnu.org>
- Reply-to: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200
>> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
>> CC: schwab@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>> > From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
>> > Cc: schwab@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:47:49 -0500
>> >
>> > Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> >
>> > > DJ, would the following semi-kludgey workaround be acceptable?
>> >
>> > It would be no worse than what we have now, if the only purpose is to
>> > avoid a warning.
>> >
>> > Ideally, we would check to see if we're discarding non-zero values from
>> > that offset, and not call the callback with known bogus data. I suppose
>> > the usefulness of that depends on how often you'll encounter 4Gb+ xcoff64
>> > files on mingw32 ?
>>
>> The answer to that question is "never", AFAIU.
>
> So can the patch I proposed be applied, please?
I committed the patch.
Ian