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: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: dj at redhat dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 14:47:49 +0200
- 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>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> 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?
TIA