From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124459 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2018 05:01:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 124237 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2018 05:01:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:U*dj X-HELO: mail-yb0-f171.google.com Received: from mail-yb0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-yb0-f171.google.com) (209.85.213.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 05:01:14 +0000 Received: by mail-yb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id y77so2085663ybe.13 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oGP47OsiMMfD2/gNV1wxV7o/PA3e6crPIcgPAZrsr7o=; b=tdZvx4++mk+1fIyukCk1DG+M7xwYE5IwPyDl8nMlZoRa7apzNfEKIr7C7RX0ZPgJXL Pd/lX17XexGvs9oxkoap87S7dbFgDRYvbPS8xSI5fRM44+Iz45cUsOAujKnkVP/ceN7k 5LAvSVzu9keyfNkbcJOxM/KKG9JEuTYNIzsjyZl6ju26CaLCBWkRUSdF+UgWuTIailHH CcCpZsfs4edj56vnRqkG45sqopLIIpYRb4wE7MFtp0O6LNn+bzXuCTEOMNGayxYpPpKc rf5OuqmNGa7hbPbHaGAf1kll+VVq5uuiXIm/ImevJ32w/45Rut6xzYos1IlrjyNDD69U MxNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcfheMih2GALIvpFjewE8SORFHsaxtocUUanAWZm2XimWLH1A4j AjxKiOYorjuTNDYptndB519LW1YIhKmV5K82ottCBA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224BKDRR2tPm1qwMETxrJ/Meabysi2DyL82Pj26bYNdy22GUnNJ3uTU+9lMx7bA0v7hFLugDpFMgsKXTkr5wkog= X-Received: by 10.37.111.194 with SMTP id k185mr3469624ybc.4.1516510872030; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.203.129 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83r2qksnm2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <833733x2zj.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2qksnm2.fsf@gnu.org> From: "Ian Lance Taylor via gcc-patches" Reply-To: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 06:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg01822.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200 >> From: Eli Zaretskii >> CC: schwab@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> > From: DJ Delorie >> > 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 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? I committed the patch. Ian