> From: Ian Lance Taylor <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:01:09 -0800 > Cc: DJ Delorie <[email protected]>, gcc-patches <[email protected]>, > gdb-patches <[email protected]> > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:25:20 +0200 > >> From: Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> > >> CC: [email protected], [email protected], > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > From: DJ Delorie <[email protected]> > >> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], > >> > [email protected] > >> > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:47:49 -0500 > >> > > >> > Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> 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!
