From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24115 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2003 23:30:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24076 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2003 23:30:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 2003 23:30:08 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BNU7H16894 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:30:07 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BNU6I21433; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:30:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-31.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.31]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BNU5E24567; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:30:06 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5BNU0u27359; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:30:00 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:30:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030611233000.ZM27356@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [patch rfc] -Wmissing-prototypes round #3" (Jun 11, 4:59pm) References: <3EE76A05.2050409@redhat.com> <1030611203142.ZM26545@localhost.localdomain> <3EE79819.4090207@redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [patch rfc] -Wmissing-prototypes round #3 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 On Jun 11, 4:59pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Some comments with regard to IA-64: > > > > 1) I'd rather have the declarations for > > ia64_linux_sigcontext_register_address() and > > ia64_aix_sigcontext_register_address() go into a single ia64-tdep.h > > file. I think having two files is overkill. > > I'ts 6 of one half dozen of the other. At least it's clear which .c > file the .h declaration belongs to. If someone later eliminates it, all > the better. I think it's quite likely that an ia64-tdep.h file will prove useful in the long term, so I don't mind seeing it created. OTOH, I don't see any point in creating two files which'll likely contain nothing more than the declarations you're proposing putting in them. These files and the resulting Makefile.in baggage (dependencies) will just wind up being deleted at some later time when someone gets around to doing #2 below. Also, I don't think it'll be difficult to find the header file containing the declarations when necessary. > > 2) However, even that shouldn't be necessary. Now that we have the > > OSABI machinery, it should be possible to solve the problem without > > having to export these functions at all. > > In the mean time I'd like to get -Wmissing-prototypes enabled. Sure. I didn't mean for you to do #2. In fact, the problem gets considerably easier if we delete the IA-64 AIX stuff first. (To the best of my knowledge, it's completely dead.) Kevin