From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4826 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2014 11:29:52 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 4817 invoked by uid 89); 14 Nov 2014 11:29:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:29:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5C4116A58; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:29:48 -0500 (EST) 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 xobhDNAC0oVL; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:29:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90ABC1168BC; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:29:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9D85340F79; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:29:46 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:29:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gregory.0xf0@gmail.com Subject: Re: gnulib's errno module was imported Message-ID: <20141114112946.GA5774@adacore.com> References: <87oasaibe6.fsf@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87oasaibe6.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00297.txt.bz2 > I am inclined to back "dirfd" (and "errno") module out. As a result, > gdb will not be compatible with LSB 3.0, but it is just a minor issue to > me. What do you think? I don't have any strong feeling, but I am wondering, now that errno snuck in, whether we might just wait and see if it actually really causes problems in practice? I have a feeling that the errno module will keep wanting to get in, so this is perhaps our chance to try to work this one out. -- Joel