From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jim Blandy Cc: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ac131313@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] enum enable Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:06:00 -0000 Message-id: References: X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00418.html On 16 Jul 2001, Jim Blandy wrote: > Why are the following changes necessary? Structure members aren't in > the global namespace: > > > (struct breakpoint): Rename the `enable' member to `enable_state'. > > (args_for_catchpoint_enable): Rename the `enable' member to > > `enable_p'. All users changed. > > (struct tracepoint): The member `enabled' is now `int enabled_p'. > > * printcmd.c (struct display): The `status' member is now an int. > > * memattr.h (struct mem_region): Rename the `status' member to > > `enabled_p'. In addition to Andrew's request to change that, GCC 2.7.2.1 barfs if it sees the declaration of a member `enable' together with a prototype of a function `enable' in the same compilation unit. In my case, the function is declared in one of the system headers, so I guess GCC sees it first and protests when the same identifier appears in a struct. (Yes, I know, GCC 2.7.2.1 is old, but I still use it on one of my machines because, unlike 2.9x series, it is remarkably stable and bug-free. I use it as a ``reference implementation'' whenever I have obscure problems with code which behaves in some weird fashion.)