From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17601 invoked by alias); 29 Feb 2004 00:53:05 -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 17594 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2004 00:53:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Feb 2004 00:53:04 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AxFCa-0005wq-BY; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:53:04 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [ob] user-regs.c build fix for arm-linux Message-ID: <20040229005304.GA22713@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040228173121.GA15679@nevyn.them.org> <4040D178.2050405@gnu.org> <20040228183027.GA17364@nevyn.them.org> <4040E2CC.6010603@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4040E2CC.6010603@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00869.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:49:48PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 12:35:52PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>>>>+/* We call this gdb_user_regs instead of user_regs to avoid conflicts > >>>>with > >>>>>+ any struct user_regs in system headers (for instance, ARM > >>>>GNU/Linux). >*/ > >> > >>> > >>>Please be more explicit. > > > > > >What else would you like to know? What header it comes from? > > Er, yes? The comment should describe the exact cause of the problem. > Otherwize there is no way to audit this stuff later. > > BTW, wouldn't this stuff, and not ICU have been a better thing to do > last weekend? Andrew, please do not attempt to dictate to me the use of my time as a volunteer. I have already explained to you that ICU is important to me and to the distributions I contribute to, and I resent your continual objections. I'm perfectly willing for my submitted patches to sit and wait until after the branch. The next important thing on my list after that was merging our internal tree to the GDB HEAD for testing purposes, and that's what I'm doing now. I'll do MIPS next week. Normally I wouldn't do any of this until after the branch was cut anyway. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer