From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2784 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2002 17:06:58 -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 2613 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 17:06:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 17:06:49 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1DH6k124943; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:06:46 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:06:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200202131706.g1DH6k124943@duracef.shout.net> To: msnyder@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] nuke CONST_PTR Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00360.txt.bz2 Hi Michael, ms> Your reasoning seems good, but your testing doesn't. ms> Seems to me you need to test this when building with Microsoft C. I think I already addressed this point: mec> However, in gdb 4.18, gdb 5.0, gdb 5.1, and gdb 5.1, c-lang.c has also mec> contained this line: mec> mec> struct type **const (cplus_builtin_types[]) = mec> mec> So this form has been in gdb source code for four releases already mec> without drawing complaint. Also, the CONST_PTR macro has been unconditionally "struct type **const" since 5.1, which admittedly is not much time. ms> OTOH, do we ever build with Microsoft C any more? ms> Is there any reason to support it? Cygwin and Djgcc ms> are both self-hosting, aren't they? I don't know about Microsoft C. I do know that I build Cygwin gdb using Cygwin gcc. I don't know about djgpp. ms> So the discussion (if there still is one) is (I think) ms> "do we still support building with Microsoft C?" I don't know. The second half of the question is "and does Microsoft C still have a problem with struct type **const". If we do support building with Microsoft C, and if Microsoft C has a problem with "struct type **const", then gdb 4.18, 5.0, 5.1, and 5.1.1 are all broken in one spot. Maybe that is not a good reason for breaking it in other spots. But one instance of "struct type **const" has been in released versions of gdb for 34 months now and I don't see complaints coming in. Michael C