From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17022 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2002 18:55:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16974 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 18:55:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 18:55:56 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E313E77; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:55:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C641F3A.2090601@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:55:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, "Martin M. Hunt" Subject: Re: [RFA] fix for utils.c bool problem References: <200202072133.NAA28346@cygnus.com> <20020207163944.A30605@nevyn.them.org> <20020208105750.A16802@nevyn.them.org> <3C6401FE.1060302@cygnus.com> <20020208115715.A21971@nevyn.them.org> <3C640642.3020908@cygnus.com> <20020208123825.B23880@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 > Is that a current or a released debian system? A released system I'd >> probably agreeable to. A current system I'm less so. > > > Current. But for Debian that's a somewhat meaningless distinction; > probably a quarter or more of the Debian users run current. The > package in question will be in the next release, hopefully in a few > months. Assuming the changes are in :-( Can you please at least create bug reports (one for utils and one for TUI I guess) to track the problems. Can you please also add a FIXME: drow/2002-02-03: explaining the rationale behind the hack (especially mention the GNU/Linux variant) and how it should be fixed properly. >> > - The way I tried to fix this was by also using stdbool.h if it was >> > available. But conflicts with an awful lot of existing >> > code. This is unfortunate, and this is where the proper fix lies, >> > IMO. >> > - The way I settled on fixing this, and committed, was to use >> > if something included before bfd.h had already brought >> > it in. This appears to work in all cases. >> > >> >I strongly want to avoid leaving GDB unbuildable on this class of >> >systems. I don't have any particular attachment to my patch. I would >> >love to revert it, as soon as there is an alternative solution in >> >place. > >> >> >> See my thread on binutils about how to fix the problem. > > > As I've said, I have no objection to fixing it that way. But I do > object to leaving it broken. My problem is that this hack doesn't fix the problem. The track record is that once a hack is in, everyone ignores it and goes onto something else - which leaves me to fix it :-( sigh, Andrew