From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32608 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2002 13:06:24 -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 32600 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 13:06:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 13:06:23 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17gmEc-0003ew-00; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:06:18 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17gmF9-0007OP-00; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:06:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 06:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: TYPE_CODE_FLAGS Message-ID: <20020819130651.GA28249@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 No, no no no. You just committed this: case TYPE_CODE_FLAGS: return c_val_print (type, valaddr, embedded_offset, address, stream, format, deref_ref, recurse, pretty); But if that built for you, you are not checking your patches in a clean FSF tree. The patch to use TYPE_CODE_FLAGS was never approved. There is no definition of TYPE_CODE_FLAGS in the GDB source code. That will not compile. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer