From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19146 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2007 21:37:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 19138 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2007 21:37:23 -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; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:37:16 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HEBWT-0007oH-HJ; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:37:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ob] Fix mingw build Message-ID: <20070205213713.GA29839@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070205132346.GA28998@nevyn.them.org> <17863.41600.734035.193757@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17863.41600.734035.193757@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:32:48AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > > Our autotester broke after Nick's timings patch; we have a forward > > declaration of struct timeval, but not a full definition. This fixes > > it. We already include unconditionally in a number of > > other places. > > I don't quite understand why it failed as the timeval members are only > accessed in mi-main.c which already included sys/time.h (for mi_load_progress). Because struct mi_timestamp contains struct timeval members. If you don't have a definition of the structure in scope, then it's "incomplete" - the compiler does not know what size it is, so it can not lay out a structure containing one. > It's best here anyway. Although it doesn't break anything, maybe it should be > removed from mi-main.c now. I tend to leave it - that file will need it even if it's removed from here for some reason. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery