From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7136 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2007 13:59:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 7089 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2007 13:59:54 -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; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:59:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723332ABA9C; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:58:45 -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 ohUBMxn-BVhO; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6C72ABC27; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3B2C8E7B58; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: 'Mark Kettenis' , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] ARI fix: Replace dirent.h by gdb_dirent.h in linux-fork.c Message-ID: <20071008135843.GL3570@adacore.com> References: <009d01c809a7$a52fc9a0$ef8f5ce0$@u-strasbg.fr> <200710081326.l98DQs62013226@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <009f01c809b1$f15c5280$d414f780$@u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <009f01c809b1$f15c5280$d414f780$@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/msg00150.txt.bz2 > Maybe, but in my latest commit to linux-fork.c I did exactly > the same operation for the wait header, and moved it up from > the system includes to the local "header.h" includes, > and Joel told me that this was the right thing to do... Maybe I was wrong :-o. Seriously, the reason why I said yes at the time is because I didn't think it would make a difference. I don't think it will make a difference here either, but Mark's approach is less prone to cause unexpected behavior changes. -- Joel