From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13487 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2004 18:37:16 -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 13453 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2004 18:37:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Aug 2004 18:37:15 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i79IbFe3022843 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:37:15 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i79IbFa25167; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:37:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-22.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.22]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i79IbEgU006447; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:37:14 -0400 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.10) with SMTP id i79Ib83s004019; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:37:09 -0700 Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:37:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Peter Schauer Subject: Re: [patch/rfa] xm-aix4.h cleanup Message-Id: <20040809113708.41911cad@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <20040809064826.GO1192@gnat.com> References: <20040809063644.GN1192@gnat.com> <20040809064826.GO1192@gnat.com> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00326.txt.bz2 On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:48:26 -0700 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > This leaves: > > > > . FIVE_ARG_PTRACE: Will become OBE thanks to a patch from MarkK. > > > > . USE_O_NOCTTY: I think the idea for that one is to always use O_NOCTTY, > > regardless of the system. So the macro becomes moot. Will send a patch. > > > > . #pragma alloca: Need to continue the discussion. > > Actually, I didn't look closely enough, even after Mark's answer. > This is already dealt with, so we can remove this one as well. > So I'm suggesting this patch instead (which such scraps the alloca > #pragma in addition to what the previous patch was already removing). > > Is this OK? > > (the only little detail is that I am not sure I can verify this works > or not. I'll see what I can do). I'm in favor of this patch so long as AIX still builds okay and the test results look good. Kevin