On 11/02/2015 12:35 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
diff --git a/gdb/ada-lang.c b/gdb/ada-lang.c
index fff4862..2559a36 100644
--- a/gdb/ada-lang.c
+++ b/gdb/ada-lang.c
@@ -11359,9 +11359,11 @@ ada_evaluate_subexp (struct type *expect_type, struct
expression *exp,
return value_zero (ada_aligned_type (type), lval_memory);
}
else
- arg1 = ada_value_struct_elt (arg1, &exp->elts[pc + 2].string, 0);
- arg1 = unwrap_value (arg1);
- return ada_to_fixed_value (arg1);
+ {
+ arg1 = ada_value_struct_elt (arg1, &exp->elts[pc + 2].string, 0);
+ arg1 = unwrap_value (arg1);
+ return ada_to_fixed_value (arg1);
+ }
case OP_TYPE:
/* The value is not supposed to be used. This is here to make it
Interesting. It's not technically a bug, since the "if true" clause has
an unconditional return, but it looks like a time-bomb to me. I'm happy
that we warn for it.
Agreed.
These three are all of the form:
if (record_debug)
fprint (...multiple lines...);
return -1;
It seems reasonable to me to complain about the indentation of the
return -1;
Agreed.
diff --git a/sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/k_rem_pio2f.c
b/sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/k_rem_pio2f.c
index 0c7685c..a0d844c 100644
--- a/sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/k_rem_pio2f.c
+++ b/sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/k_rem_pio2f.c
@@ -65,7 +65,8 @@ int __kernel_rem_pio2f(float *x, float *y, int e0, int nx,
int prec, const int32
/* compute q[0],q[1],...q[jk] */
for (i=0;i<=jk;i++) {
- for(j=0,fw=0.0;j<=jx;j++) fw += x[j]*f[jx+i-j]; q[i] = fw;
+ for(j=0,fw=0.0;j<=jx;j++) fw += x[j]*f[jx+i-j];
+ q[i] = fw;
}
jz = jk;
I think it's very reasonable to complain about the above code.
Agreed.
So if I've counted things right the tally is:
* 5 dubious-looking though correct places, where it's reasonable to
issue a warning
* 5 places where there's a blank line between guarded and non-guarded
stmt, where patch 1 of the kit would have suppressed the warning
* one bug (PR 68187)
I think we want the first kind of thing at -Wall, but I'm not so keen on
the second kind at -Wall. Is there precedent for "levels" of a warning?
(so e.g. pedantry level 1 at -Wall, level 2 at -Wextra, and have patch 1
be the difference between levels 1 and 2?)
Sorry for harping on about patch 1; thanks again for posting this
No worries about harping. These are real world cases.
And yes, there's definitely precedent for different levels of a warning.
If you wanted to add a patch to have different levels and select one
for -Wall, I'd look favorably on that.
Jeff