From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24725 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 15:48:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 24713 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2011 15:48:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 825 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2011 15:48:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.102?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 27 Apr 2011 15:48:31 -0000 Message-ID: <4DB83ACB.6080503@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:48:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed Apr 27 01:54:55 UTC 2011 References: <20110427015455.GA24839@sourceware.org> <4DB78A74.9060105@codesourcery.com> <20110427150815.GB2489@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110427150815.GB2489@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00512.txt.bz2 On 04/27/2011 11:08 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> 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. > Yes, I agree. So far, gdb code is using gdb_wait.h and gdbserver is using sys/wait.h. gdb_wait.h looks quite independent of gdb or gdbserver. Is there any known reason that we can't use gdb_wait.h in gdbserver? I don't see any. -- Yao (齐尧)