From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21845 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2013 16:24:14 -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 21835 invoked by uid 89); 28 Apr 2013 16:24:14 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:24:12 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MLZ00J0045VEX00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:24:09 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MLZ00JNP489E020@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:24:09 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:48:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.6 released! In-reply-to: <20130428073805.GU3525@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83ip36sjxd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83k3nptk18.fsf@gnu.org> <837gjotnc9.fsf@gnu.org> <20130428073805.GU3525@adacore.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00854.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:38:05 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > The offending incomplete type is 'enum errors'. > > > > Any reason not to include exceptions.h in utils.h, to avoid these > > warnings? > > No objection from me. We'd then be able to remove the partial > declaration of that enum. OK, will install such a change (if, when the dust settles on the issue you raise below, we decide to leave the function). > I am wondering why we are not seeing this on other platforms... Probably because I was using a _really_ old compiler (3.4.2) on the machine where I saw this. > utils.c:throw_perror_with_name doesn't appear to be used anywhere except > in utils.c:perror_with_name, which is nothing more than a wrapper where > errcode is set to GENERIC_ERROR. I am wondering if we want to keep that > function around, or either make the function static, or inline its code > in perror_with_name... > > I'd probably investigate why and when the function was introduced > before making a decision, but I am running out of time for today... It's not urgent. Thanks.