From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22114 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2015 19:01:26 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 22088 invoked by uid 89); 7 Jan 2015 19:01:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:01:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t07J1D0s011057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:01:14 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t07J123p006592; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:01:04 -0500 Message-ID: <54AD826C.30606@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:01:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sellcey@imgtec.com, Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Yao Qi , Chen Gang Subject: Re: [Patch] Fix build problem with system call in compile/compile.c References: <20150106041615.GJ5445@adacore.com> <1420560255.15691.21.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <20150107041351.GN5445@adacore.com> <1420655766.15691.44.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> In-Reply-To: <1420655766.15691.44.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00133.txt.bz2 On 01/07/2015 06:36 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > I am not sure why we allow ourselves to ignore the return value. Maybe > we shouldn't. Chen Gang submitted a different patch where the return > value is checked. Should we use that instead? > > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-01/msg00011.html Yes, I think so. Jan's WIP patch to use ftw/fts instead of "rm -rf" also warns on fail. Meanwhile, I think Chen's patch is good. Thanks, Pedro Alves