From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-15547-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 5596 invoked by alias); 15 May 2002 12:49:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 5488 invoked from network); 15 May 2002 12:49:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2002 12:49:00 -0000
Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201])
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A86A01E5C7; Wed, 15 May 2002 14:48:58 +0200 (MEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: sykes.suse.de: schwab set sender to schwab@suse.de using -f
To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Cc: Andrew Volkov <Andrew.Volkov@transas.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros
References: <200205151239.NAA14345@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
X-Yow: I was in EXCRUCIATING PAIN until I started reading JACK AND JILL
 Magazine!!
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 05:49:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <200205151239.NAA14345@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> (Richard
 Earnshaw's message of "Wed, 15 May 2002 13:39:10 +0100")
Message-ID: <je1ycd1sqy.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/21.2.50 (ia64-suse-linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00595.txt.bz2

Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:

|> > Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
|> > 
|> > |> !   return time (0);	//WinXX HAS UNIX like 'time', so why not using it?
|> > |> 
|> > |> C++ style comments are not legal ANSI C.
|> > 
|> > Hmm, which ANSI C do you mean?  C++ style comments are surely valid in
|> > ANSI C as we know it today.
|> > 
|> > Andreas.
|> > 
|> 
|> c89, the original (which, to the best of my knowledge is the standard GDB 
|> is coded to).  C++ style comments didn't become legal in C until c99.

I know, but you should say that explicitly.  Your original statement is
not correct in this form.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."