From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8424 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2010 14:17:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 8414 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Mar 2010 14:17:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:17:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 31650 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2010 14:17:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 26 Mar 2010 14:17:06 -0000 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ozkan Sezer Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ktietz70@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] winsock include fixes Message-ID: <20100326141655.GA23473@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ozkan Sezer , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ktietz70@googlemail.com References: <647fe9b11003260354o53df5f0ayde8d1e3a03f1b694@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <647fe9b11003260354o53df5f0ayde8d1e3a03f1b694@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00885.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:54:10PM +0200, Ozkan Sezer wrote: > Hi: Here is a patch fixing the winsock include problem > which appeared after the recent winsock header work in > mingw-w64-headers. This patch isn't OK, because it fixes an inclusion order problem by moving things around without a comment. Everywhere else the "gdb_XXX.h" headers are included in a group, last. So someone's going to clean up these files and reintroduce the problem. It sounds like part of the problem is the inclusion of winsock2.h in gdb_select.h, and windows.h in serial.h. Should we include both headers in both files to avoid the problem? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery