> From: Ian Lance Taylor
> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:09 -0800
> Cc: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches ,
> gdb-patches
>
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200
> >> From: Eli Zaretskii
> >> CC: sch...@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.g
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200
>> From: Eli Zaretskii
>> CC: sch...@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
>> gdb-patc...@sourceware.org
>>
>> > From: DJ Delorie
>> > Cc: sch...@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
>> > gd
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii
> CC: sch...@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
> gdb-patc...@sourceware.org
>
> > From: DJ Delorie
> > Cc: sch...@linux-m68k.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
> > gdb-patc...@sourceware.org
> > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:47:49 -
> From: DJ Delorie
> 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 writes:
>
> > DJ, would the following semi-kludgey workaround be acceptable?
>
> It would be no worse than what we have now, if the only
Eli Zaretskii 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
> From: Andreas Schwab
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
> gdb-patc...@sourceware.org
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:00:55 +0100
>
> On Jan 16 2018, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > And it's not the host's bit size that counts; there are usually ways to
> > get 64-bit file operations on 32-
On Jan 16 2018, DJ Delorie wrote:
> And it's not the host's bit size that counts; there are usually ways to
> get 64-bit file operations on 32-bit hosts.
If ACX_LARGEFILE doesn't succeed in enabling those 64-bit file
operations (thus making off_t a 64-bit type) then you are out of luck
(or AC_SY
Well, it should all work fine as long as the xcoff64 file is less than 4
Gb.
And it's not the host's bit size that counts; there are usually ways to
get 64-bit file operations on 32-bit hosts.
> From: DJ Delorie
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patc...@sourceware.org
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:00:48 -0500
>
>
> I think that warning is valid - the host has a 32-bit limit to file
> sizes (off_t) but it's trying to read a 64-bit offset (in that clause).
> It's warning you that you won
I think that warning is valid - the host has a 32-bit limit to file
sizes (off_t) but it's trying to read a 64-bit offset (in that clause).
It's warning you that you won't be able to handle files as large as the
field implies.
Can we hide the warning? Probably. Should we? Debatable, as long as
10 matches
Mail list logo
