From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#766: 23.0.60; interesting warning during compilation Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:14:58 +0300 Message-ID: References: <4762603A-B23E-454E-A43C-422DE5036DC4@Freenet.DE> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii , 766@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1219548473 21092 80.91.229.12 (24 Aug 2008 03:27:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:27:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 766@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 24 05:28:46 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KX6HU-0004xN-Bw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:28:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57004 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KX6GW-0000Z0-KC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:27:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KX6GL-0000SG-HS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:27:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KX6GK-0000Ri-BA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:27:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34852 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KX6GJ-0000RX-Vj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:27:32 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:49784) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KX6GJ-0004rj-8d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:27:31 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m7O3RSun028028; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:27:28 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m7O3K8DG025398; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:20:08 -0700 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:20:07 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 766 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 766-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B766.121954770723826 (code B ref 766); Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:20:07 +0000 Original-Received: (at 766) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 24 Aug 2008 03:15:07 +0000 Original-Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (mtaout2.012.net.il [84.95.2.4]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m7O3F3lB023559 for <766@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:15:05 -0700 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.211.50]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K6300MO151TVE40@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for 766@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:15:30 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:27:32 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:19678 Archived-At: > From: Andreas Schwab > Cc: 766@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, Peter_Dyballa@Freenet.DE, > bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:12:55 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Andreas, it's late and I'm tired. Could you please answer my > > question, which is: what is the danger, if any, that GCC in some > > future version will produce the same warning for the code you > > suggested? > > I have already answered that question. In that case, I didn't understand it. Just for me, could you please translate it into a simple YES or NO: is there a danger that GCC will in the future produce the same warning for your suggested code? Thanks.