From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49027 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2016 16:48:00 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 49011 invoked by uid 89); 18 Apr 2016 16:48:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:47:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2DB2C049E1E; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3IGlu9H011355; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:47:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix PR gdb/19250: ptrace prototype is not detected properly in C++ mode To: Andreas Schwab References: <1460765786-12190-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <5714FD3D.5010706@redhat.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <57150FBC.3080005@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:48:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5714FD3D.5010706@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00416.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2016 04:29 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > BUT! This seems to be all moot and can be relegated to "clean up". > > I took another fresh look, and I can't figure out why I needed > to make these tests run in C++ mode in the first place... > > So I think that from a correctness perspective, we should push > this patch in instead. I went ahead and pushed this one in. Thanks, Pedro Alves