From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2998 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2002 13:14:31 -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 2991 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 13:14:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cerbere.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 13:14:30 -0000 Received: from laocoon (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) by cerbere.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0FE3AC; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:20:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20020819150257.01fc7e40@ics.u-strasbg.fr> X-Sender: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 06:14:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz From: Pierre Muller Subject: Re: TYPE_CODE_FLAGS Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20020819130651.GA28249@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00546.txt.bz2 At 15:06 19/08/2002 , Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit: >No, no no no. > >You just committed this: > case TYPE_CODE_FLAGS: > return c_val_print (type, valaddr, embedded_offset, address, stream, > format, deref_ref, recurse, pretty); > >But if that built for you, you are not checking your patches in a clean >FSF tree. The patch to use TYPE_CODE_FLAGS was never approved. There >is no definition of TYPE_CODE_FLAGS in the GDB source code. That will >not compile. Whoops, sorry about that, I will remove the patch ASAP.... Removed from CVS. Sorry again :( Pierre Muller Institut Charles Sadron 6,rue Boussingault F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France) mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07 Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99