Re: Status on cross builds

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>]

Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com> writes:

> I don't think so at all.  The -Werror results are just due to the usage
> of gdb_byte and I don't think that qualifies for treating these targets
> as broken.  It only means that nobody touched the targets after the
> gdb_byte change has been introduced, but that doesn't invalidate the
> targets as a whole.  This point of view is somewhat excessive, IMHO.

Especially since there are massive warnings in generic code.  For example:

valprint.c: In function 'partial_memory_read':
valprint.c:1047: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'target_read_
memory' differ in signedness
valprint.c:1058: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'target_read_
memory' differ in signedness
valprint.c: In function 'val_print_string':
valprint.c:1168: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'extract_unsi
gned_integer' differ in signedness
valprint.c:1207: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'target_read_
memory' differ in signedness
valprint.c:1208: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of 'extract_unsi
gned_integer' differ in signedness
valprint.c:1230: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 2 of 'current_lang
uage->la_printstr' differ in signedness
valprint.c: In function '_initialize_valprint':
valprint.c:1388: warning: unused variable 'c'

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."