On 2020-05-30 11:32 a.m., Samuel Thibault wrote: > Simon Marchi, le sam. 30 mai 2020 10:47:50 -0400, a ecrit: >> On 2020-05-29 6:01 p.m., Samuel Thibault wrote: >>> process_reply_S.c:104:23: error: function called through a non-compatible >>> type [-Werror] >>> 104 | OutP->RetCode = (*(kern_return_t (*)(mach_port_t, >>> kern_return_t)) S_proc_setmsgport_reply) (In0P->Head.msgh_request_port, >>> In0P- >>> >>> gdb/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2020-05-29 Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@ens-lyon.org> >>> >>> * reply_mig_hack.awk (Error return): Cast function through >>> void *, to bypass compiler function call check. >> >> If you are silencing a compiler warning, please explain why it is safe to do >> so. > > It is not actually safe, as explained by the comment above the changed > lines, but as explained by the comment above really fixing it is very > far from trivial. > > In my repo I have added > > “ > As the existing comment says, it is in general not safe to drop some > parameters > like this, but this is the error handling case, where the called function does > not actually read them, and mig is currently planned to be used on i386 and > x86_64 only, where this is not a problem. As the existing comment says, fixing > it properly would be far from trivial: we can't just pass 0 for them, as they > might not be scalar. > ” > > Is that enough of an explanation for the changelog?
Ok, thanks, I missed that comment. But yeah, I think that text for the commit message (not ChangeLog entry) is helpful! Simon
