From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32659 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 04:48:59 -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 32651 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2002 04:48:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2002 04:48:58 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id BBBF3D2CC7; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 21:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 21:48:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] want to #undef HAVE_SBRK and HAVE_POLL on Interix Message-ID: <20021022044952.GA2798@gnat.com> References: <20021021061151.GY7331@gnat.com> <3DB449B5.4090005@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DB449B5.4090005@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00388.txt.bz2 > I'd just suggest tweaking it a little so that it: [snip] > > Here, report that it wasn't even testing for sbrk() or poll(). That > way, there would be no confusion over a missing test. Use AC_MSG_WARN() > I think. Makes sense. If nobody objects to this approach in the next few days, I will submit for approval a patch with the warnings (I will also go fishing in aclocal, just in case I find something better). Thanks, -- Joel