From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13878 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2009 16:57:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 13854 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2009 16:57:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-96-233-71-199.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (96.233.71.199) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:57:45 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5380013C028; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:57:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 5672E2B35E; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:57:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:57:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFA/win32] Avoid a couple of name collisions in win32-nat.c Message-ID: <20090107165734.GD31906@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker References: <20090107112422.GB1751@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090107112422.GB1751@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 03:24:22PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote: >This patch simply renames a couple of global variables that are pointers >to routines imported from kernel32. The reason why they need to be >renamed is that the names chosen were identical to the name in kernel32, >and the declaration is clashing with the declaration in winbase.h. >I followed the example of the routines imported in psapi.dll where >the name is prefixed by psapi_. > >2009-01-07 Joel Brobecker > > * win32-nat.c (kernel32_DebugSetProcessKillOnExit): Renames > DebugSetProcessKillOnExit. Update all uses in this file. > (kernel32_DebugActiveProcessStop): Renames DebugActiveProcessStop. > Update all uses in this file. > >Tested on x86-windows. > >OK to apply? Ah, should have read further. I don't understand why this is now a problem. What changed? cgf