From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 50190 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2018 03:25:33 -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 50041 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jan 2018 03:25:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 03:25:31 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ec0pS-00005D-8V for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 22:25:29 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47963) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ec0pS-000057-4j; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 22:25:26 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3188 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ec0pR-0004GK-EE; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 22:25:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 03:25:00 -0000 Message-Id: <833733x2zj.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: DJ Delorie CC: schwab@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from DJ Delorie on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:47:49 -0500) Subject: Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00363.txt.bz2 > 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.