From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16684 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2007 18:12:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 16674 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2007 18:12:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:12:16 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19E7981F4; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:12:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AAD981F1; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 18:12:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Idreo-0001O3-14; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:12:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc/rft] [1/3] Remove stabs target macros: VARIABLES_INSIDE_BLOCK Message-ID: <20071005181214.GA5316@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200710051805.l95I5D78029197@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200710051805.l95I5D78029197@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > +/* Specify that for the native compiler variables for a particular > + lexical context are listed after the beginning LBRAC instead of > + before in the executables list of symbols. */ > +static int > +arm_variables_inside_block (int desc, int gcc_p) > +{ > + return !gcc_p; > +} Does anyone reading this know what native compiler is meant here? I suspect it is an ancient comment, probably back as far as RiscOS. In that case there's no reason to keep the variable. > > static enum gdb_osabi > arm_elf_osabi_sniffer (bfd *abfd) > @@ -3001,6 +3010,9 @@ arm_gdbarch_init (struct gdbarch_info in > set_gdbarch_coff_make_msymbol_special (gdbarch, > arm_coff_make_msymbol_special); > > + /* Specical STABS overrides. */ Typo. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery