From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Blandy To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ac131313@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA] enum enable Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:33:00 -0000 Message-id: References: X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00770.html Eli Zaretskii writes: > I attach below, after the error messages, the part of patch for > printcmd.c, which clearly shows that _all_ of the lines for which GCC > complained on your machine should in fact have been patched by the > patch I posted. How come it didn't work for you? That part of the patch doesn't appear in your most recent post: Subject: Re: [RFA] enum enable Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:26:35 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: < 200107251426.RAA18009@is.elta.co.il > It mentions printcmd.c in the ChangeLog, but that filename appears nowhere else in the patch: 11 lines matching "^\\+\\+\\+" in buffer *Article*. 100:+++ gdb/breakpoint.h Sat Jul 14 13:09:40 2001 156:+++ gdb/breakpoint.c Sat Jul 14 13:21:16 2001 921:+++ gdb/memattr.h Sat Jul 14 12:17:06 2001 936:+++ gdb/memattr.c Sat Jul 14 12:15:44 2001 1020:+++ gdb/tracepoint.h Sat Jul 14 12:29:56 2001 1046:+++ gdb/tracepoint.c Wed Jul 25 16:52:18 2001 1091:+++ gdb/infcmd.c Sat Jul 14 13:16:06 2001 1104:+++ gdb/go32-nat.c Sat Jul 14 12:04:50 2001 1129:+++ gdb/tui/tuiDisassem.c Sat Jul 14 13:18:18 2001 1142:+++ gdb/tui/tuiSource.c Sat Jul 14 13:20:46 2001 1155:+++ gdb/tui/tuiSourceWin.c Sat Jul 14 13:19:42 2001 I suspect your first patch had a similar problem, too.