From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 991 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2007 20:02:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 979 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2007 20:02:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:02:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4B62AD314; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id AX5I0a4X59kv; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D212AD30D; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 954A9E7B58; Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:02:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] ARI fix: Replace sys/wait.h by gdb_wait.h in linux-fork.c Message-ID: <20071005200154.GC3570@adacore.com> References: <005e01c80723$4ae0dec0$e0a29c40$@u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <005e01c80723$4ae0dec0$e0a29c40$@u-strasbg.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00072.txt.bz2 Hello Pascal, > 2007-10-04 Pierre Muller > > * linux-fork.c: ARI fix: include "gdb_wait.h" instead of . > Makefile.in (linux-fork.o): Add gdb_wait.h dependency. This patch is OK. I ran it against the regression testsuite just to double-check. > 2) Are there rules about the order in which > the different headers are listed? There are some rules, like "defs.h" should always be included first. Usually speaking, in C, I always try to write include files in a way that the order in which I include them is not important. To the best or my knowledge, GDB also tries to accomplish that. > I did put the gdb_wait.h together with other local > headers, which seems to be a common practice in GDB sources. That's perfect. > 3) I also updated the dependency of linux-fork.o in > Makefile.in, but stumbled on the same problem: > is there some preferred ordering of the dependency list? I don't know if there is a prefered ordering. Definitely, the ordering in the makefile does not matter, but I try to maintain the dependency list in the same order as the includes. It makes it a lot simpler to double-check that the list is still accurate. So your change is great. > trying to reduce ARIs... Thanks! -- Joel