> From: Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> > Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:09 -0800 > Cc: DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, > gdb-patches <gdb-patc...@sourceware.org> > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200 > >> From: Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> > >> CC: sch...@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, > >> gdb-patc...@sourceware.org > >> > >> > From: DJ Delorie <d...@redhat.com> > >> > Cc: sch...@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, > >> > gdb-patc...@sourceware.org > >> > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:47:49 -0500 > >> > > >> > Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> writes: > >> > > >> > > DJ, would the following semi-kludgey workaround be acceptable? > >> > > >> > It would be no worse than what we have now, if the only purpose is to > >> > avoid a warning. > >> > > >> > Ideally, we would check to see if we're discarding non-zero values from > >> > that offset, and not call the callback with known bogus data. I suppose > >> > the usefulness of that depends on how often you'll encounter 4Gb+ xcoff64 > >> > files on mingw32 ? > >> > >> The answer to that question is "never", AFAIU. > > > > So can the patch I proposed be applied, please? > > I committed the patch.
Thanks, Ian!
