From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10147 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2012 10:27:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 10116 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2012 10:27:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:27:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2GARQIO002999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:27:26 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2GAROYF019307; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:27:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4F63158C.7040600@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:27:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Muller CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix mingw64 compilation References: <4f631340.65b1b60a.6213.14dfSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <4f631340.65b1b60a.6213.14dfSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00596.txt.bz2 On 03/16/2012 10:17 AM, Pierre Muller wrote: > One more native target > that was not yet fixed for -Wmissing-prototypes > option. > > This is a simple adaptation of what > is in i386-windows-nat.c. > > I didn't use OBVIOUS rule > as I don't know if there was a 'better' > comment to put before... If it was good for i386-windows-nat.c, then this should be good. If it wasn't, then whoever wants to change it can change both i386-windows-nat.c and amd64-windows-nat.c at the same time in a follow up patch, using just about the same effort as just changing i386-windows-nat.c now. IOW, just go ahead and commit this to fix the build. -- Pedro Alves