Re: [PATCH v2] gdb/i387-tdep.c: Avoid warning for "-Werror=strict-overflow"

[Chen Gang <gang dot chen dot 5i5j at gmail dot com>]

Oh, really it is. Originally, I skipped it (do not know it should be as an issue, too). Also sorry for my poor English: misunderstand what you said (this patch can still continue, although gcc 5 has another issue).

And next, I shall try to fix it, based on what bugzilla has done. But excuse me, I have no enough time resource on it, so maybe can not finish within this month (try to finish within next month) .

Thanks

Send from Lenovo A788t.

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> wrote:

>On 12 October 2014 15:47, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/14 22:13, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> On 12 October 2014 14:28, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> gdb requires "-Werror", and I387_ST0_REGNUM (tdep) is 'variable', then
>>>> compiler can think that I387_ST0_REGNUM (tdep) may be a large number,
>>>> which may cause issue, so report warning.
>>>>
>>>> Need fix this warning, and still keep the code clear enough for readers.
>>>> The related warning under Darwin with gnu built gcc:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I had noted the same on GCC 5.0.0 development, found that the line
>>> number in the warning was wrong and raised a bug
>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510), just didn't get
>>> round to submitting a patch for gdb.
>>>
>>
>> But for me, what compiler has done is correct: "-Werror=strict-overflow"
>> need include "(X + c) >= X" for signed overflow. And our case matches
>> this case:
>>
>
>The compiler has done right, but that still doesn't stop the reported
>line number being wrong.
>
>-- Iain.