From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18495 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2010 21:59:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 18486 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2010 21:59:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:59:24 +0000 Received: (qmail 6168 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2010 21:59:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 31 Aug 2010 21:59:22 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [commit] Build memmem with -Wno-error. Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:59:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil References: <1283281706-30409-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201008312134.16818.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100831212223.GO2986@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100831212223.GO2986@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201008312259.20672.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00579.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 31 August 2010 22:22:23, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I'm not sure whether this may break the build on older gcc's, but > > given --disable-werror, it's fine with me to give this a try. > > I had a look at the documentation for older versions of GCC, up to > version 2.95.3, and all manuals say that for every -Wsomething, there > is the counter-part Wno-something. Unless there was an omission in > the implementation, I think that the sed adjustment should be fine. Thanks. I was more concerned with the the fact that the file after the patch is build with -Werror, and that that particular -W flag may not exist in such order versions, and/or another flag is necessary to disable the warning in question. One would assume not though, hence me being fine with this until proven otherwise. :-) -- Pedro Alves