From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16416 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2010 17:23:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 16406 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2010 17:23:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:23:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oANHMoTh028423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:22:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oANHMmLj017597; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:22:48 -0500 From: Phil Muldoon To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [RFA/Python] Fix procfs.c build failure on 32bit solaris (_FILE_OFFSET_BITS) References: <1290474834-1945-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201011231242.44422.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201011231628.33851.pedro@codesourcery.com> Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:23:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201011231628.33851.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:28:33 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00359.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves writes: > On Tuesday 23 November 2010 15:21:41, Tom Tromey wrote: >> >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro, > Here's a patch. We can move the PyObject fallback typedef from defs.h > to varobj.c again. I haven't looked to see if the PyObject pointers > in struct varobj have some other concrete type we could forward > declare instead. Or why don't we #ifdef out those fields if building > without python. > > Tested by building gdb with and without --with-python=no. I've no objection really, but wouldn't the PyObject typedef be better suited to defs.h? Cheers, Phil