This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Broken build: rs6000-tdep.c: 32-bit host --enable-targets=all --enable-64-bit-bfd [Re: [PATCH 2/3 v4] Process record support for PowerPC]
- From: Wei-cheng Wang <cole945 at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:46:58 +0800
- Subject: Re: Broken build: rs6000-tdep.c: 32-bit host --enable-targets=all --enable-64-bit-bfd [Re: [PATCH 2/3 v4] Process record support for PowerPC]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAPmZyH6Gp2xan6anM9hAGir72_kPDopXjg0PaoAaQ+0af+J8PA at mail dot gmail dot com> <201501171146 dot t0HBktpk008932 at d03av02 dot boulder dot ibm dot com> <20150117185342 dot GA10419 at adacore dot com> <20150117212014 dot GA32152 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net>
On 2015/1/18 äå 05:20, Jan Kratochvil wrote:> On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 19:53:42 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> Makefile:1112: recipe for target 'rs6000-tdep.o' failed
Hi,
Here is the fix. Ok to commit?
2015-01-18 Wei-cheng Wang <cole945@gmail.com>
* rs6000-tdep.c (ppc_process_record_op4, ppc_process_record_op19,
ppc_process_record_op31, ppc_process_record_op59,
ppc_process_record_op60, ppc_process_record_op63,
ppc_process_record): Fix -Wformat warning.
* rs6000-tdep.c (rs6000_epilogue_frame_cache, ppc_process_record_op60):
Remove unused variables.
diff --git a/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c b/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c
index 75811d1..0e3c941 100644
--- a/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c
+++ b/gdb/rs6000-tdep.c
@@ -3356,7 +3356,6 @@ rs6000_epilogue_frame_cache (struct frame_info *this_frame, void **this_cache)
struct rs6000_frame_cache *cache;
struct gdbarch *gdbarch = get_frame_arch (this_frame);
struct gdbarch_tdep *tdep = gdbarch_tdep (gdbarch);
- CORE_ADDR sp;
if (*this_cache)
return *this_cache;
@@ -3957,8 +3956,8 @@ ppc_process_record_op4 (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
return 0;
}
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record "
- "%08x at %08lx, 4-%d.\n", insn, addr, ext);
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record %08x "
+ "at 0x%lx, 4-%d.\n", insn, (unsigned long) addr, ext);
return -1;
}
@@ -4000,8 +3999,8 @@ ppc_process_record_op19 (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
return 0;
}
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record "
- "%08x at %08lx, 19-%d.\n", insn, addr, ext);
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record %08x "
+ "at 0x%lx, 19-%d.\n", insn, (unsigned long) addr, ext);
return -1;
}
@@ -4458,7 +4457,8 @@ ppc_process_record_op31 (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
case 878: /* Transaction Abort Doubleword Conditional Immediate */
case 910: /* Transaction Abort */
fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Cannot record Transaction instructions. "
- "%08x at %08lx, 31-%d.\n", insn, addr, ext);
+ "%08x at 0x%lx, 31-%d.\n",
+ insn, (unsigned long) addr, ext);
return -1;
case 1014: /* Data Cache Block set to Zero */
@@ -4477,8 +4477,8 @@ ppc_process_record_op31 (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
}
UNKNOWN_OP:
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record "
- "%08x at %08lx, 31-%d.\n", insn, addr, ext);
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record %08x "
+ "at 0x%lx, 31-%d.\n", insn, (unsigned long) addr, ext);
return -1;
}
@@ -4569,8 +4569,8 @@ ppc_process_record_op59 (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
return 0;
}
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record "
- "%08x at %08lx, 59-%d.\n", insn, addr, ext);
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record %08x "
+ "at 0x%lx, 59-%d.\n", insn, (unsigned long) addr, ext);
return -1;
}
@@ -4582,7 +4582,6 @@ ppc_process_record_op60 (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
{
struct gdbarch_tdep *tdep = gdbarch_tdep (gdbarch);
int ext = PPC_EXTOP (insn);
- int tmp;
switch (ext >> 2)
{
@@ -4852,8 +4851,8 @@ ppc_process_record_op60 (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
return 0;
}
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record "
- "%08x at %08lx, 60-%d.\n", insn, addr, ext);
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record %08x "
+ "at 0x%lx, 60-%d.\n", insn, (unsigned long) addr, ext);
return -1;
}
@@ -5018,8 +5017,8 @@ ppc_process_record_op63 (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
}
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record "
- "%08x at %08lx, 59-%d.\n", insn, addr, ext);
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record %08x "
+ "at 0x%lx, 59-%d.\n", insn, (unsigned long) addr, ext);
return -1;
}
@@ -5298,8 +5297,8 @@ ppc_process_record (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct regcache *regcache,
default:
UNKNOWN_OP:
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record "
- "%08x at %08lx, %d.\n", insn, addr, op6);
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "Warning: Don't know how to record %08x "
+ "at 0x%lx, %d.\n", insn, (unsigned long) addr, op6);
return -1;
}
--
The patches are not (yet?) on gdb-7.9-branch so 7.9 is not affected.
It also probably would not break the build as 7.9 will have --disable-werror.
Not on gdb-7.9-branch yet.
With this fix, is it ok to pick the 4 patches (including this one)
to gdb-7.9-branch now?
Thanks,
Wei-cheng