From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10952 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 16:28:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 10929 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2012 16:28:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:28:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qACGRxna005766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:27:59 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qACGRwna023009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:27:58 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Pierre Muller , "'Pedro Alves'" , devans@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PING: [RFA] Fix New ARI warning Tue Nov 6 01:58:48 UTC 2012 References: <20121106015848.GA5296@sourceware.org> <5098efb2.05fd440a.7696.ffffd821SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <50995EBB.6070503@redhat.com> <001b01cdc0b6$7e7b67d0$7b723770$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20121112155053.GS5103@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20121112155053.GS5103@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:50:53 -0800") Message-ID: <87mwymbxbm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 >> 1-- Brutal method: >> Remove function from both header and C sources >> as well as from ARI script. Joel> I'd go with this approach. Me too. It is better for gdb if the source tree makes sense on its own terms. Projects using gdb in "funny" ways can either adapt or copy the deleted utility functions. Tom