Re: Fwd: -Wpointer-sign for GCC 4.1

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:40:55AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> The message below is kind of odd.  We do use -Wall

No, we don't.  See the comments in configure.ac about this.

>, so if the pointer
> sign warning will be printed when -Wall is specified, we'll still need
> to pass an explicit argument to disable it.  Which doesn't exactly
> take the decision out of our hands, as we were hoping.
> 
> I think we should decide, for ourselves, whether we think the warning
> is helpful or not, and then not be demure about doing the necessary
> GCC stuff to enable or disable it.  Hoping GCC would answer the
> question for us was dopey.

Sorry, that wasn't my goal.  My goal with forwarding this to the GCC
list was independent of what GDB should do - as Joe wrote, the GCC SC
made a promise to RMS that I'm trying to make sure doesn't slip through
the cracks.

> I think there's some documentation value in reserving gdb_byte for
> binary blobs and char for host-format text.  It wouldn't have been
> worth it before, but at this point we've got fixes for almost all
> those warnings in place; we can't get those hours back, so the
> cost/benefit is different now.  So I think we should continue to
> request the warning.

Almost all of those warnings on some targets, btw.  An ARM cross
debugger has a whole new set of them.  I don't know which option I
prefer.  Either way I'll probably clean up ARM soonish.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery