From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32593 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2006 15:29:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 32568 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2006 15:29:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:29:01 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gp4tF-0004qR-EZ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:28:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove REALTIME_HI/LO macros from target headers Message-ID: <20061128152857.GD17349@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200611242113.kAOLDMdQ032123@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200611242113.kAOLDMdQ032123@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00312.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 10:13:22PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > However, since signals.c appears to be used only in native configurations, > that doesn't actually matter. On the other hand, this means we can get > those defines out of the tm-*.h files and into the nm-*.h files. Well, those two routines anyway - some of the others are used in common code. > The following files currently define the REALTIME macros: > - config/tm-linux.h and config/mips/tm-linux.h > - config/rs6000/tm-rs6000ly.h > - config/tm-nto.h > > For Linux, the nm-linux.h file already defines those macros, so the > definitions in the tm files appear to be fully redundant. The nm-linux.h define is redundant too, isn't it? And off by one? Compare to the top of signals.c. Or is the copy in signals.c off by one? Patch looks OK modulo that question. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery