From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20315 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2004 15:58:35 -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 20308 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2004 15:58:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Jul 2004 15:58:34 -0000 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6UFwELI015847; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:58:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i6UFwQvv008442; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:58:26 +0100 Received: (from rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i6UFwQWr008440; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:58:26 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha set sender to rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org using -f Subject: Re: [trivial] remove references to add_setshow_cmd_full from arm-tdep.c From: Richard Earnshaw To: Ramana Radhakrishnan Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <410A68AE.2090004@codito.com> References: <410A68AE.2090004@codito.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: GNU Message-Id: <1091203105.31643.103.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:58:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00501.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 16:26, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Hi , > While attempting to build cvs head now for arm-elf I ran into a problem > with add_setshow_cmd_full for apcs32. It has been made > static in cli-decode.c . Someone has corrected the call but not removed > the reference . So here goes. > > This patch removes the reference. Below the call to add_setshow_cmd_full > and a call to add_setshow_cmd_boolean is present below. Ok to apply ? > > cheers > Ramana > This isn't correct. 1) No ChangeLog entry 2) It's adding code, yet you claim you're removing code. 3) (assuming the patch is inverted somehow) It removes the initialization of new_set and new_show, but you've left the subsequent deprecate_cmd calls. R.