This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Fix warnings using gcc-4.5 HEAD
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:28:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix warnings using gcc-4.5 HEAD
- References: <20090711082502.GA18801@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200907110836.n6B8a4Yn015392@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090711083928.GA30826@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <837hyfy3fv.fsf@gnu.org> <20090711175937.GB18892@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <m38wi7t9z1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20090908185119.GA10457@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20090910014821.GH20694@adacore.com>
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:48:21 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> The Ada part seems fine. I'm left wondering if it really brings much
> value to have this in a separate file, rather than added directly to
> enum exp_opcode inside expression.h, especially since other languages
> are now having visibility on these enumerates. But the the benefits
> are not obvious either way to me, so let's not worry about this for now.
OK, I (also) do not have a strict opinion on it.
> Do you want me to look at the rest of the patch as well, or did someone
> (Tom?) look at that already?
Except for the changed comment for OP_EXTENDED0 the whole patch is now
approved, the other part by Tom:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00721.html
Going to check it in on weekend if nobody replies.
Thanks,
Jan