From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24457 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2009 18:36:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 24449 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2009 18:36:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:35:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7JIZtNH007770 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:35:55 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7JIZsTW023061 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:35:54 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7JIZsdR001986; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:35:54 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id A80B23782EF; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:35:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Ralf Wildenhues Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/N] some minor fixes in sim, gold, gdb References: <20090815112928.GB5396@gmx.de> <20090815113302.GC20172@gmx.de> <20090818184349.GE30742@gmx.de> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090818184349.GE30742@gmx.de> (Ralf Wildenhues's message of "Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:43:50 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues writes: Ralf> Of these changes, this one still needs approval: >> - sim/common/aclocal.m4: SIM_CHECK_MEMBER is alias for AC_CHECK_MEMBER now. >> This also needs to happen at the same time as the Autoconf update, to >> avoid exposing whatever bugs 2.59's AC_CHECK_MEMBER had. >> Is this ok or would you rather I replace every use of SIM_CHECK_MEMBER >> with AC_CHECK_MEMBER? This is ok. I think it would be preferable to just do the replacement. However, I realize your patch is pretty huge already. So, if you would prefer to just change the definition of SIM_CHECK_MEMBER, that is fine by me. Tom