From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9515F385843A for ; Wed, 3 May 2023 19:18:08 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9515F385843A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9C0FD302BB02; Wed, 3 May 2023 21:18:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 21:18:07 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: Tom de Vries Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Pass const frame_info_ptr reference for skip_[language_]trampoline Message-ID: <20230503191807.GG19114@gnu.wildebeest.org> References: <20230502183444.1445634-1-mark@klomp.org> <87wn1ptqow.fsf@tromey.com> <20230503151127.GE19114@gnu.wildebeest.org> <872d854d-9eb1-d028-38a5-b7d010af309d@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <872d854d-9eb1-d028-38a5-b7d010af309d@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3030.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Tom, On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 08:07:50PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote: > I've submitted a patch at > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2023-May/199342.html . Thanks for figuring out why the compiler couldn't see through the destructor. I must admit I didn't really understood that part. > Indeed it's not a "fix" for the warning as such. > > It's more a follow-up on the observation that the code that triggers > the warning was introduced for a reason that's no longer valid, so > we can just remove it and simplify the code, which then also "fixes" > the warning. It is an interesting warning because it caused a bit of code cleanup. But it seems to warn about something, the correct lifetime of an object, that the compiler doesn't seem able to proof consistently. Hopefully your simplification of the destructor will make the compile able to "proof" the correct lifetime and fix the remaining sparc issue. Cheers, Mark