From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15927 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 15:08:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 15918 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2011 15:08:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:08:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2332BAB95; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:08:19 -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 lh8qJHNM-Bzu; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D322BAB5D; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 216BE145615; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:08:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:08:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed Apr 27 01:54:55 UTC 2011 Message-ID: <20110427150815.GB2489@adacore.com> References: <20110427015455.GA24839@sourceware.org> <4DB78A74.9060105@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DB78A74.9060105@codesourcery.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: 2011-04/txt/msg00509.txt.bz2 > sys/wait.h is included for macro __WALL. However, we can safely remove > this include from common/linux-ptrace.h because either sys/wait.h or > gdb_wait.h is included before including linux-ptrace.h in linux-nat.c > and linux-low.c. That's the only pragmatic answer that we have right now, but I do think that this is an extremely bad practice. Or maybe I'm biased by my past as an Ada developer... Sooner or later, we'll have to move these header files to the common area as well. -- Joel