From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 4E1DB384F4A4; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 12:50:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4E1DB384F4A4
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1668775848;
	bh=yXtfKOFQGsVXCdFhDiPU6alpxjHTv9jTuPLPN9VHSUY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=pOxaanQ4K/niAEuqUo+VxDrXiYcDh9o1pKx80ukPLjClWnlHZp87sgTWxJuC/n4Dt
	 0PEydlBVAOm0JLMk2iFeWqLYLpF4Nen/pL1zoWV7Dok3SW8h4Dz9vl91vBNrysLrZ1
	 cCD4+pg7qUAeKSCrIugllynICVJbsN1NYrVS3UeY=
From: "ro at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug build/29791] [13 regression] Many gdbsupport files don't
 compile on Solaris
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 12:50:47 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: build
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.1
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-29791-4717-sBsU5AaU03@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-29791-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-29791-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29791

--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #3)
> I found this: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101747
> which points out a problem with the 2-argument form of
> the malloc attribute.

I'd found this myself, but forgotten about it.  I've meanwhile reported the
current failure in that PR: let's see what we get from that.

> Unfortunately the error messages here don't tell us enough to know
> where the ambiguous use occurs.  They just refer back to the macro
> itself -- but we want the spot where it is invoked.  Normally GCC
> shows this.

Indeed: that's why I couldn't really make sense of the error, and failed to
produce a reduced testcase.

> I also don't know the correct fix.  The opacity here is one of the
> issues with using gnulib, IMO.  Maybe reaching out to them is the
> best thing to do.  Meanwhile, especially just before the GDB 13
> release, I'm reasonably fine with a workaround like the one you have.

My current feeling is to wait with a gnulib bug report until I hear from the
GCC side: otherwise, there's probably not much what they can do about the
problem.

> Our gnulib import has a way to automate application of a patch
> when doing a new import.  See gnulib/update-gnulib.sh and
> gnulib/patches/.  I guess you should do something along those
> lines.

Thanks, that got me started.  I've a patch ready along those lines that I w=
ill
post shortly.

Thanks.
  Rainer

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=