From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12564-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9760 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2002 21:02:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9722 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 21:02:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO corb.mc.mpls.visi.com) (208.42.156.1)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 21:02:42 -0000
Received: from grante.comtrol.com (grante.dsl.visi.com [208.42.141.248])
	by corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6261A8239
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Wed,  6 Feb 2002 15:02:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 31476 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2002 21:08:06 -0000
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:02:00 -0000
From: Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>,
	Nick Clifton <nickc@cambridge.redhat.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Confusion over the definition of 'bool' in rdi-share/host.h
Message-ID: <20020206150805.A31050@visi.com>
References: <m3vgdbdchr.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com> <3C6034B6.38CB7252@apple.com> <3C60A2FC.1080506@cygnus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <3C60A2FC.1080506@cygnus.com>; from ac131313@cygnus.com on Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 10:29:00PM -0500
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00179.txt.bz2

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 10:29:00PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Nick Clifton wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> I am not sure if we are allowed to modify rdi-share/host.h, it
> >> appears to be copyright to ARM, but if we are, then may I submit the
> >> following patch to undefine bool before it is used ?
> > 
> > 
> > We do whatever we want to rdi-share/*.  My personal vote is to
> > delete it and start over... :-)
>
> Next release? :-) Have you seen how much protocol/remote stuff
> deleting the a29k eliminates?

OK, I see the smileys, but this would be a major problem for
me, so forgive my paranoia:

Are you seriously proposing that somebody re-write ADP protocol
support from scratch or that support for ADP be abandoned
completely?

Somebody at EPI is working on supporting the "remote" protocol
with newer JTAG interfaces, but until that happens (and
somebody gives me about $10K to replace my development
hardware), I need ADP support.

-- 
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com