From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14954 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2009 02:40:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 14921 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Mar 2009 02:40:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:40:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3332BABA7; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:40:16 -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 njgOvwcB6tbI; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78CC2BABA0; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:40:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0E77C5BD21; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] AR Index: Add exceptions for gnulib/string.in.h Message-ID: <20090324024012.GQ9472@adacore.com> References: <000701c9ac0a$0ad213c0$20763b40$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090323232312.GM9472@adacore.com> <000901c9ac10$1bc3a2b0$534ae810$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000901c9ac10$1bc3a2b0$534ae810$@u-strasbg.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00520.txt.bz2 > This can be done by adding a simple line in gdb_find.sh > > -name gnulib -prune -o \ > > Would that be a better change? Yes - that would seem like the right thing to do (thanks for you feedback, Tom!). Go ahead and commit that change. I don' think that other maintainers will want us to check these files against the ARI, but it's always easy to undo that change if some do. Can you also post the patch you ended up checking in, just for the record? Thanks, -- Joel