At present, for gcc version 5.0.0 20150109 (experimental) (GCC), can not find this warning again. So this thread can be ended. If it will appear again in the future, I shall analyze it again only within gcc wide. And sorry for having delayed a long time for it. Thanks. On 11/10/14 09:45, Chen Gang wrote: > Hello Iain: > > Is this bug still alive (I joined in bug 63510)? If it is, I shall try > to fix it within this month (within 2014-11-30). > > At present, its status is: > > - gcc members think that what compiler has done is correct, but need > improve its report line number: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510 > > - gdb members might think what compiler has done is incorrect (need not > report warning). > > - for me, I agree with gcc members' opinion, and shall try to improve > its report line number. > > > Welcome any ideas, suggestions and completions, in time. > > Thanks. > > On 10/13/14 7:45, Chen Gang wrote: >> Oh, really it is. Originally, I skipped it (do not know it should be as an issue, too). Also sorry for my poor English: misunderstand what you said (this patch can still continue, although gcc 5 has another issue). >> >> And next, I shall try to fix it, based on what bugzilla has done. But excuse me, I have no enough time resource on it, so maybe can not finish within this month (try to finish within next month) . >> >> Thanks >> >> Send from Lenovo A788t. >> >> >> Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 12 October 2014 15:47, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 10/12/14 22:13, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>>> On 12 October 2014 14:28, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@xxxxxxxxx> 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. >> > > Thanks. > -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
