From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20073 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2006 18:56:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 20064 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2006 18:56:21 -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 18:56:12 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gp87k-00074b-Uo; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:56:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:56:00 -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: <20061128185608.GA27151@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20061128152857.GD17349@nevyn.them.org> <200611281850.kASIoxaU008674@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200611281850.kASIoxaU008674@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/msg00341.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 07:50:59PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Right. The nm-linux.h define should be redundant too. However, it > is actually the correct version; the one at the top of signals.c > is off by one. (SIGRTMAX is the number of last real-time signal, > REALTIME_HI is supposed to be one beyond the number of the last > real-time signal.) > > So we should fix the default definition in signals.c, and then > remove the redundant define in nm-linux.h. In fact, this would > allow to remove the #include from nm-linux.h as well, > but that *might* cause breakage if any of the native Linux targets > happens to rely on that implicit inclusion of . > That's unfortunately a bit hard to test for ... I'm not too worried about it. Let's assume it won't be a problem, and if it is, it's easy to fix. > > Patch looks OK modulo that question. > > Would it be OK to commit the current patch as-is, and do the removal > from nm-linux.h as a follow-on patch? Yes, that's fine; the current patch is OK. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery