[OBV] fix procfs.c compilation failure

[OBV] fix procfs.c compilation failure

[Pierre Muller]

Pedro,

you apparently missed procfs_wait from procfs.c source
when you added the options parameter.

  This patch allows to compile successfully on i386 OpenSolaris
again.

  Checked in as obvious.

  I have no idea if options value should be handled
inside procfs_wait... as I didn't really try to understand
why you added that parameter.
  Could you check if you think that the code should be modified to handle
non-zero options arg?

Pierre Muller
Pascal language support maintainer for GDB



ChangeLog entry:
2009-05-25  Pierre Muller  <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>

       * procfs.c (procfs_wait): Add options parameter.

Index: procfs.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/procfs.c,v
retrieving revision 1.108
diff -u -p -r1.108 procfs.c
--- procfs.c    18 May 2009 00:58:38 -0000      1.108
+++ procfs.c    25 May 2009 12:23:35 -0000
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static void procfs_mourn_inferior (struc
 static void procfs_create_inferior (struct target_ops *, char *,
                                    char *, char **, int);
 static ptid_t procfs_wait (struct target_ops *,
-                          ptid_t, struct target_waitstatus *);
+                          ptid_t, struct target_waitstatus *, int);
 static int procfs_xfer_memory (CORE_ADDR, gdb_byte *, int, int,
                               struct mem_attrib *attrib,
                               struct target_ops *);
@@ -3947,7 +3947,7 @@ syscall_is_lwp_create (procinfo *pi, int

 static ptid_t
 procfs_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
-            ptid_t ptid, struct target_waitstatus *status)
+            ptid_t ptid, struct target_waitstatus *status, int options)
 {
   /* First cut: loosely based on original version 2.1 */
   procinfo *pi;

Re: [OBV] fix procfs.c compilation failure

[Pedro Alves]

On Monday 25 May 2009 13:29:05, Pierre Muller wrote:
>   Checked in as obvious.

Thanks.

>   I have no idea if options value should be handled
> inside procfs_wait... as I didn't really try to understand
> why you added that parameter.
>   Could you check if you think that the code should be modified to handle
> non-zero options arg?

It should not.

-- 
Pedro Alves