From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21314 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2012 19:36:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 21151 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2012 19:36:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:35:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E641C6DF7; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id SN1xzGAdI5RS; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BD61C6C9F; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7D6E1145616; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: 'Mark Kettenis' , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB -Wmissing-prototypes and flex troubles Message-ID: <20120613193547.GE18072@adacore.com> References: <004801cd48f1$e6599080$b30cb180$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20120613043748.GB2709@adacore.com> <006601cd4938$21926190$64b724b0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <006601cd4938$21926190$64b724b0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 > I solved it locally by downloading 2.5.35 sources, > configuring, compiling and installing in my home directory... > But this is not really a nice solution either. That's what I do at AdaCore too, because I don't want to burden the sysadmins with upgrading all our machines. I think that this is the best solution, I'm afraid, because it'll allow you to catch new warnings that might be introduced in ada-lex.l as well. If you prefer, we could think of trying to find an autoconf test for that, and then use it to decide whether ada-exp.c should be built with or without -Werror. I don't know how easy it would be to implement the autoconf check, though. I guess we could just use a dummy lex file, and then compile the transformed file... If you really prefer to go that route, I'll review the patches. -- Joel