From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18201 invoked by alias); 24 May 2013 09:13:18 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18192 invoked by uid 89); 24 May 2013 09:13:18 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:13:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4O9DDi7009777 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 May 2013 05:13:13 -0400 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-83.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.83]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4O9D9VZ024649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 May 2013 05:13:11 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Svante Signell Cc: Pedro Alves , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Small patch to enable build of gdb-7.6 for GNU/Hurd References: <1369326967.8127.33.camel@s1499.it.kth.se> <20130524042734.GG4017@adacore.com> <519F2A7A.4050002@redhat.com> <1369386446.8127.51.camel@s1499.it.kth.se> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1369386446.8127.51.camel@s1499.it.kth.se> (Svante Signell's message of "Fri, 24 May 2013 11:07:26 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00919.txt.bz2 On Friday, May 24 2013, Svante Signell wrote: > I will change to use xstrprintf instead. Updated patch with ChangeLog > entry will follow shortly. Is it OK to modify also the other (preceding) > function in the same way (for consistency)? Thanks. It is OK IMO, but I'd prefer if you did that in a separate patch. -- Sergio