From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24210 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2002 22:14:21 -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 24135 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 22:14:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 22:14:20 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16Ywo2-0001v5-00; Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:14:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: "Martin M. Hunt" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] fix for utils.c bool problem Message-ID: <20020207171414.A5630@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , "Martin M. Hunt" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200202072133.NAA28346@cygnus.com> <20020207163944.A30605@nevyn.them.org> <3C62F941.90805@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C62F941.90805@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 05:01:37PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Martin, > > > > @@ -20,18 +20,18 @@ > Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, > Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. */ > > -#include "defs.h" > -#include "gdb_assert.h" > -#include > -#include "gdb_string.h" > -#include "event-top.h" > - > #ifdef HAVE_CURSES_H > #include > #endif > #ifdef HAVE_TERM_H > #include > #endif > + > +#include "defs.h" > +#include "gdb_assert.h" > +#include > +#include "gdb_string.h" > +#include "event-top.h" > > #ifdef __GO32__ > #include > > It needs to at least include "config.h" first (that is where HAVE_CURSES_H > is defined). I think something like: > > > #include "config.h" > #include "bfd.h" > #include "defs.h" No, just include "config.h" and then before defs.h. > but the ``I think'' highlights the problem :-( I don't think we should > be working around problems in an un released BFD :-/ I don't follow that. If we ever, ever built using a "system" bfd.h, maybe. BFD is part of our source distribution, for all that it is owned by a different group. "Released" doesn't mean anything. The names that would need to be changed are 'true' and 'false'. That's a problem of fairly great magnitude. (And I missed that Martin had forgotten config.h. That should have caused some warnings...) -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer