From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12889 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2008 14:33:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 12866 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jul 2008 14:33:22 -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; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:33:02 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5F198423; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:33:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095A798337; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:32:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KLfOk-0003Ef-N8; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:32:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Michael Snyder , Doug Kwan =?utf-8?B?KOmXnOaMr+W+tyk=?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdbserver] Check for sys/dir.h and sys.user.h in configuration. Message-ID: <20080723143258.GA12421@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , Michael Snyder , Doug Kwan =?utf-8?B?KOmXnOaMr+W+tyk=?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <498552560807221759w1ade0ec2jd63c12475ddb5217@mail.gmail.com> <1216784910.3549.496.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216821712.5922.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1216821712.5922.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:01:51AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 20:48 -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > > I'm surprised by some of the diffs in the generated configure > > script -- wonder if you used a different version of autoconf > > or something? > > When I regenerate configure in my system here I get the same spurious > diffs that Doug Kwan got. I'm using Debian, with autoconf package > version 2.59a-3. Yes. If you want to get a clean diff, use the actual autoconf release - not Debian's package of it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery