From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2432 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2012 20:13:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 2066 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2012 20:12:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (HELO mailhost.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.200.158) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:12:52 +0000 Received: from md14.u-strasbg.fr (md14.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.200.249]) by mailhost.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id qAFKCjGm077177 ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:12:45 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr) Received: from mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (ms17.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.204.117]) by md14.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id qAFKCi9v029093 ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:12:45 +0100 Received: from E6510Muller (lec67-4-82-230-53-140.fbx.proxad.net [82.230.53.140]) (user=mullerp mech=LOGIN) by mailserver.u-strasbg.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.5pre1) with ESMTP id qAFKChNw023302 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:12:44 +0100 (envelope-from pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr) From: "Pierre Muller" To: "'Pedro Alves'" Cc: "'Joel Brobecker'" , References: <009b01cdc30f$c7684e80$5638eb80$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20121115151350.GB3806@adacore.com> <50a51777.47f0440a.09dd.2b79SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50A530FA.1020604@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50A530FA.1020604@redhat.com> Subject: RE: [RFC] ARI related: Use of GCC poison pragma Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <001f01cdc36d$938a7a30$ba9f6e90$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] De la p= art > de Pedro Alves > Envoy=E9=A0: jeudi 15 novembre 2012 19:14 > =C0=A0: Pierre Muller > Cc=A0: 'Joel Brobecker'; gdb@sourceware.org > Objet=A0: Re: [RFC] ARI related: Use of GCC poison pragma >=20 > On 15-11-2012 16:25, Pierre Muller wrote: > > > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] De la > part > >> de Joel Brobecker > >> Envoy=E9 : jeudi 15 novembre 2012 16:14 > >> =C0 : Pierre Muller > >> Cc : gdb@sourceware.org > >> Objet : Re: [RFC] ARI related: Use of GCC poison pragma > >> > >>> To avoid resurgence of expunged ARI problems, > >>> Pedro suggested the use of GCC poison pragma. > > Yes, Pedro talked about simply removing the > > function completely. > >> I believe it was Tom, actually. > > and Tom suggested use of poison pragma. >=20 >=20 > Yes, and believe it or not, before suggesting that, I actually > wrote a patch that copied over the poison stuff from GCC into GDB. :-) I > did it > to easily see where the function was still used. But the only usages that > revealed > were in the function definition itself, and so I just pointed out that it > can > just be removed. I then deleted the patch I had, as thinking that it wasn't > _that_ useful. For gcc it's more useful as it still does a lot of things > with > target macros, instead of target methods. Poisoning gdb functions IMO > doesn't > have that much value, since once you remove them, you can't use them anymore > anyway without the compiler or linker complaining. It could be more useful > for symbols from libiberty we might not want to use, for instance. >=20 > So I still say, just remove the unused function. Poisoning that particular > symbol afterwards doesn't add anything. But we could poison function that do exist in standard includes like sprint for example, no? Pierre