From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-16576-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17965 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2002 18:08:31 -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 17934 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2002 18:08:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 2002 18:08:28 -0000
Received: from 01-062.118.popsite.net ([66.19.120.62] helo=nevyn.them.org)
	by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 17O0AN-0005ar-00; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:08:23 -0500
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17O0AP-0002NY-00; Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:08:21 -0400
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:08:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [5.2.1] quiet warnings for gdbreplay.c
Message-ID: <20020628180820.GA9115@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>,
	obrien@FreeBSD.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <20020627204720.A13445@dragon.nuxi.com> <3D1C8AEF.5020508@ges.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3D1C8AEF.5020508@ges.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00570.txt.bz2

On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 12:12:31PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >+#ifdef HAVE_STRING_H
> >+#include <string.h>
> >+#endif
> 
> Should that bit be "gdb_string.h"?

That depends :)  gdbreplay is not part of GDB and has a different
config.h header (tests for a different set of macros).  I had
eliminated all references to the gdb source code but then I introduced
an include of "gdb_proc_service.h", since the alternative was just
duplicating it; I have the feeling we should move that and headers like
gdb_string.h somewhere common - are they include/gdb/ candidates?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer