Microblaze simulator - Fix missing prototype

Microblaze simulator - Fix missing prototype

[Joel Sherrill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

Without this patch, the Microblaze simulator generates
a missing prototype warning which is treated as an error.
I don't see this routine referenced elsewhere, so there is
the possibility that it also could be made static.  But
it definitely needs a prototype to build.

OK to apply?

2012-05-12  Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>

     * microblaze-rom.c (_initialize_picobug_rom): Add prototype.

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&   Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
     Support Available             (256) 722-9985



[-- Attachment #2: gdb-mblaze.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 702 bytes --]

Index: gdb/configure.tgt
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/configure.tgt,v
retrieving revision 1.253
diff -u -r1.253 configure.tgt
--- gdb/configure.tgt	24 Apr 2012 03:33:16 -0000	1.253
+++ gdb/configure.tgt	7 May 2012 20:15:54 -0000
@@ -331,8 +331,8 @@
 			monitor.o dsrec.o solib-svr4.o symfile-mem.o linux-tdep.o"
 	gdb_sim=../sim/microblaze/libsim.a
 	;;
-microblaze*-*-*)
-	# Target: Xilinx MicroBlaze running standalone
+microblaze*-*-* | microblaze*-*-rtems*)
+	# Target: Xilinx MicroBlaze running standalone (or RTEMS)
 	gdb_target_obs="microblaze-tdep.o microblaze-rom.o monitor.o dsrec.o"
 	gdb_sim=../sim/microblaze/libsim.a
 	;;

Re: Microblaze simulator - Fix missing prototype

[Mark Kettenis]

> Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:15:34 -0500
> From: Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
> 
> Without this patch, the Microblaze simulator generates
> a missing prototype warning which is treated as an error.
> I don't see this routine referenced elsewhere, so there is
> the possibility that it also could be made static.  But
> it definitely needs a prototype to build.
> 
> OK to apply?

Eh, mismatch between ChangeLog entry and actual diff?

> 2012-05-12  Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
> 
>      * microblaze-rom.c (_initialize_picobug_rom): Add prototype.
> 
> Index: gdb/configure.tgt
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/configure.tgt,v
> retrieving revision 1.253
> diff -u -r1.253 configure.tgt
> --- gdb/configure.tgt	24 Apr 2012 03:33:16 -0000	1.253
> +++ gdb/configure.tgt	7 May 2012 20:15:54 -0000
> @@ -331,8 +331,8 @@
>  			monitor.o dsrec.o solib-svr4.o symfile-mem.o linux-tdep.o"
>  	gdb_sim=../sim/microblaze/libsim.a
>  	;;
> -microblaze*-*-*)
> -	# Target: Xilinx MicroBlaze running standalone
> +microblaze*-*-* | microblaze*-*-rtems*)
> +	# Target: Xilinx MicroBlaze running standalone (or RTEMS)
>  	gdb_target_obs="microblaze-tdep.o microblaze-rom.o monitor.o dsrec.o"
>  	gdb_sim=../sim/microblaze/libsim.a
>  	;;

Re: Microblaze simulator - Fix missing prototype

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

On Tuesday, May 08 2012, Joel Sherrill wrote:

> Without this patch, the Microblaze simulator generates
> a missing prototype warning which is treated as an error.
> I don't see this routine referenced elsewhere, so there is
> the possibility that it also could be made static.  But
> it definitely needs a prototype to build.

(a) The patch does not reflect the subject of the message, nor the
ChangeLog;

(b) I have already made comments about the message above in
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-05/msg00207.html

-- 
Sergio

Re: Microblaze simulator - Fix missing prototype

[Michael Eager]

On 05/08/2012 06:15 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Without this patch, the Microblaze simulator generates
> a missing prototype warning which is treated as an error.
> I don't see this routine referenced elsewhere, so there is
> the possibility that it also could be made static. But
> it definitely needs a prototype to build.
>
> OK to apply?
>
> 2012-05-12 Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
>
> * microblaze-rom.c (_initialize_picobug_rom): Add prototype.

The attached patch is for a different change.  Please post
the correct patch.


-- 
Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077

Re: Microblaze simulator - Fix missing prototype

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

Hi Joel,

Same comment from last e-mail: please send the patches to
gdb-patches@sourceware.org.  I am replying this e-mail to the
appropriate list, with comments about your patch, but please send other
patches to that list.

On Monday, May 07 2012, Joel Sherrill wrote:

> Without this patch, this generates a missing prototype
> warning which is treated as an error. I don't see this
> routine referenced elsewhere, so there is the possibility
> that it also could be made static.

The `_initialize*' routines are treated specially by the Makefile, when
you build the project.  They cannot be made static because they are
called from another source file.  Take a look at gdb/Makefile.in, and
search for the rule `init.c:'.

> OK to apply?

Small nit below.

> Index: gdb/microblaze-rom.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/microblaze-rom.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.5
> diff -u -r1.5 microblaze-rom.c
> --- gdb/microblaze-rom.c	4 Jan 2012 08:17:06 -0000	1.5
> +++ gdb/microblaze-rom.c	7 May 2012 20:15:54 -0000
> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
>  #include "serial.h"
>  #include "regcache.h"
>  
> +void _initialize_picobug_rom(void);

There should be a space between the function name and the open paren.

I am not a maintainer, but this change seems pretty trivial to me so
that it can be committed without an explicit approval.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio

Re: Microblaze simulator - Fix missing prototype

[Joel Sherrill]

On 05/08/2012 12:21 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Same comment from last e-mail: please send the patches to
> gdb-patches@sourceware.org.  I am replying this e-mail to the
> appropriate list, with comments about your patch, but please send other
> patches to that list.
>
> On Monday, May 07 2012, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> Without this patch, this generates a missing prototype
>> warning which is treated as an error. I don't see this
>> routine referenced elsewhere, so there is the possibility
>> that it also could be made static.
> The `_initialize*' routines are treated specially by the Makefile, when
> you build the project.  They cannot be made static because they are
> called from another source file.  Take a look at gdb/Makefile.in, and
> search for the rule `init.c:'.
I suspected that and figured it was special given the odd name.
>> OK to apply?
> Small nit below.
>
>> Index: gdb/microblaze-rom.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/microblaze-rom.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.5
>> diff -u -r1.5 microblaze-rom.c
>> --- gdb/microblaze-rom.c	4 Jan 2012 08:17:06 -0000	1.5
>> +++ gdb/microblaze-rom.c	7 May 2012 20:15:54 -0000
>> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
>>   #include "serial.h"
>>   #include "regcache.h"
>>
>> +void _initialize_picobug_rom(void);
> There should be a space between the function name and the open paren.
OK. I changed that.
>
> I am not a maintainer, but this change seems pretty trivial to me so
> that it can be committed without an explicit approval.
I thought so but always feel better getting other opinions. Better
to be cautious than reverted.

Committed
> Thanks,
>


-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&   Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
     Support Available             (256) 722-9985