From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1966 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2007 07:44:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 1958 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2007 07:44:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ics.u-strasbg.fr (HELO ics.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:44:18 +0000 Received: from ICSMULLER (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) by ics.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C082318701A; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:48:59 +0200 (CEST) From: "Pierre Muller" To: "'Joel Brobecker'" Cc: References: <005e01c80723$4ae0dec0$e0a29c40$@u-strasbg.fr> <20071005200154.GC3570@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20071005200154.GC3570@adacore.com> Subject: RE: [RFC] ARI fix: Replace sys/wait.h by gdb_wait.h in linux-fork.c Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <005901c8097f$0bc90880$235b1980$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-Language: en-us Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 Thanks, committed. Pierre Muller > -----Original Message----- > From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches- > owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Joel Brobecker > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:02 PM > To: Pierre Muller > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Subject: Re: [RFC] ARI fix: Replace sys/wait.h by gdb_wait.h in linux- > fork.c > > Hello Pascal, > > > 2007-10-04 Pierre Muller > > > > * linux-fork.c: ARI fix: include "gdb_wait.h" instead of > . > > Makefile.in (linux-fork.o): Add gdb_wait.h dependency. > > This patch is OK. I ran it against the regression testsuite just > to double-check. > > > 2) Are there rules about the order in which > > the different headers are listed? > > There are some rules, like "defs.h" should always be included first. > > Usually speaking, in C, I always try to write include files in a way > that the order in which I include them is not important. To the best > or my knowledge, GDB also tries to accomplish that. > > > I did put the gdb_wait.h together with other local > > headers, which seems to be a common practice in GDB sources. > > That's perfect. > > > 3) I also updated the dependency of linux-fork.o in > > Makefile.in, but stumbled on the same problem: > > is there some preferred ordering of the dependency list? > > I don't know if there is a prefered ordering. Definitely, the ordering > in the makefile does not matter, but I try to maintain the dependency > list in the same order as the includes. It makes it a lot simpler to > double-check that the list is still accurate. So your change is great. > > > trying to reduce ARIs... > > Thanks! > > -- > Joel