From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2855 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2002 08:06:51 -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 2766 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2002 08:06:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Oct 2002 08:06:50 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id C65A2D2CC7; Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:08:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: [RFA/Semi-obvious/5.3?] Fix compilation error in hppa-tdep.c Message-ID: <20021030080837.GY903@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00584.txt.bz2 --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 1121 I guess there was a slight improvement in the profile of find_function_in_inferior. This causes a compilation failure on HP/UX. As I was working on this file, I noticed a warning saying that we should an extra pair of braces around the "&" expression, to avoid any confusion. So I added it. I sometimes make silly mistakes, so I would appreciate if somebody had a quick look, to make sure I did not screw up. This also gives me the opportunity to announce that the HP/UX target is important for ACT, and that we will do the work necessary to keep this port in good shape. My first goal for this platform is to make it at least multiarch partial. 2002-10-30 Joel Brobecker * hppa-tdep.c (find_function_in_inferior): Fix the declaration that caused a compilation error on HP/UX. (low_text_segment_addres): Fix a compilation warning. Ok to apply? Also, I am not sure about the 5.3 branch, I haven't pulled the sources from this branch yet. But I will check this shortly and apply the fix there if necessary (provided the change is approved, naturally). Thanks, -- Joel --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="hppa-tdep.c.diff" Content-length: 1536 Index: hppa-tdep.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/hppa-tdep.c,v retrieving revision 1.28 diff -c -3 -p -r1.28 hppa-tdep.c *** hppa-tdep.c 24 Oct 2002 21:02:53 -0000 1.28 --- hppa-tdep.c 30 Oct 2002 07:57:35 -0000 *************** extern int hp_som_som_object_present; *** 150,156 **** extern int exception_catchpoints_are_fragile; /* This is defined in valops.c. */ ! extern struct value *find_function_in_inferior (char *); /* Should call_function allocate stack space for a struct return? */ int --- 150,156 ---- extern int exception_catchpoints_are_fragile; /* This is defined in valops.c. */ ! extern struct value *find_function_in_inferior (const char *); /* Should call_function allocate stack space for a struct return? */ int *************** static CORE_ADDR low_text_segment_addres *** 300,306 **** static void record_text_segment_lowaddr (bfd *abfd, asection *section, void *ignored) { ! if ((section->flags & (SEC_ALLOC | SEC_LOAD | SEC_READONLY) == (SEC_ALLOC | SEC_LOAD | SEC_READONLY)) && section->vma < low_text_segment_address) low_text_segment_address = section->vma; --- 300,306 ---- static void record_text_segment_lowaddr (bfd *abfd, asection *section, void *ignored) { ! if (((section->flags & (SEC_ALLOC | SEC_LOAD | SEC_READONLY)) == (SEC_ALLOC | SEC_LOAD | SEC_READONLY)) && section->vma < low_text_segment_address) low_text_segment_address = section->vma; --9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--