This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v2] gdb/i387-tdep.c: Avoid warning for "-Werror=strict-overflow"
- From: Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org>
- To: Chen Gang <gang dot chen dot 5i5j at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:48:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gdb/i387-tdep.c: Avoid warning for "-Werror=strict-overflow"
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <543A8208 dot 9060605 at gmail dot com> <CABOHX+fLxsakVXs_nXrdTNw1g_MG=9FWJBr2MuE_7_4o8Fruaw at mail dot gmail dot com> <543A9464 dot 50308 at gmail dot com>
On 12 October 2014 15:47, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/14 22:13, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 12 October 2014 14:28, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> gdb requires "-Werror", and I387_ST0_REGNUM (tdep) is 'variable', then
>>> compiler can think that I387_ST0_REGNUM (tdep) may be a large number,
>>> which may cause issue, so report warning.
>>>
>>> Need fix this warning, and still keep the code clear enough for readers.
>>> The related warning under Darwin with gnu built gcc:
>>>
>>
>> I had noted the same on GCC 5.0.0 development, found that the line
>> number in the warning was wrong and raised a bug
>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510), just didn't get
>> round to submitting a patch for gdb.
>>
>
> But for me, what compiler has done is correct: "-Werror=strict-overflow"
> need include "(X + c) >= X" for signed overflow. And our case matches
> this case:
>
The compiler has done right, but that still doesn't stop the reported
line number being wrong.
-- Iain.