From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1G7XtY-000829-QT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:33:20 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1G7XtW-00081r-Ga
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:33:19 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7XtW-00081o-As
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:33:18 -0400
Received: from [65.74.133.4] (helo=mail.codesourcery.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1G7XwB-0003lP-PG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:36:04 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix warnings in mips_r4k.c
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:33:14 +0100
References: <44CDD962.7020900@gmail.com>
	<200607311339.37105.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<44CE032D.7050709@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <44CE032D.7050709@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200607311433.15162.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> >>hw/mips_r4k.c:256: warning: pointer targets in passing
> >>argument 1 of =E2=80=98strcpy=E2=80=99 differ in signedness
> >
> > Compile with -Wno-pointer-sign. gcc4 isn't really supported anyway.
>
> Yes, I know ;) And yes, I know there are technical reasons
> for not supporting gcc4.
>
> But do you wan't to say that at places, where because of
> typos or lazy programming and thus no technical reason for
> it (e.g. passing signed where calling function wants
> unsigned) it is better to disable warning with
> -Wno-pointer-sign instead of fixing it?

I'm saying that this warning occurs in sufficiently many places, many of wh=
ich=20
are questionable, that it's best to just turn it off.

The entry change is maybe acceptable. The strcpy change just uglifies the=20
code.

Paul