From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26278 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2002 17:38:35 -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 26176 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 17:38:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 17:38:29 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16ZEyf-0006Gl-00; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:38:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, "Martin M. Hunt" Subject: Re: [RFA] fix for utils.c bool problem Message-ID: <20020208123825.B23880@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, "Martin M. Hunt" References: <200202072133.NAA28346@cygnus.com> <20020207163944.A30605@nevyn.them.org> <20020208105750.A16802@nevyn.them.org> <3C6401FE.1060302@cygnus.com> <20020208115715.A21971@nevyn.them.org> <3C640642.3020908@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C640642.3020908@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 12:09:22PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >Sorry if I missed an objection. I was a little out of it yesterday. > > > >The immediate problem was -not- fixed. To start back at the beginning > >again: > > - On my machine, running a current Debian system, includes > > . We have to live with that. There's nothing I can > > particularly do about it. > > > Is that a current or a released debian system? A released system I'd > probably agreeable to. A current system I'm less so. Current. But for Debian that's a somewhat meaningless distinction; probably a quarter or more of the Debian users run current. The package in question will be in the next release, hopefully in a few months. > > - The way I tried to fix this was by also using stdbool.h if it was > > available. But conflicts with an awful lot of existing > > code. This is unfortunate, and this is where the proper fix lies, > > IMO. > > - The way I settled on fixing this, and committed, was to use > > if something included before bfd.h had already brought > > it in. This appears to work in all cases. > > > >I strongly want to avoid leaving GDB unbuildable on this class of > >systems. I don't have any particular attachment to my patch. I would > >love to revert it, as soon as there is an alternative solution in > >place. > > > See my thread on binutils about how to fix the problem. As I've said, I have no objection to fixing it that way. But I do object to leaving it broken. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer