From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2517 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2009 18:44:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 2508 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Feb 2009 18:44:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:44:47 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KF900900YNQIR00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:44:56 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.82.14]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KF900JZWYQUEZE0@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:44:55 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:50:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Modernize solaris threads support. In-reply-to: <200902181016.n1IAG4IX032608@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> To: Mark Kettenis Cc: stan@codesourcery.com, tromey@redhat.com, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <200902160549.49108.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200902162050.49191.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200902171310.24234.pedro@codesourcery.com> <499B35C8.9050101@codesourcery.com> <200902181016.n1IAG4IX032608@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00384.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:16:04 +0100 (CET) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: stan@codesourcery.com, tromey@redhat.com, pedro@codesourcery.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > Eli, I'm really surprised by this discussion. I didn't start the discussion. I was asked to provide a rationale for my request, which I did. > We have been doing this (removing redundant prototypes) for years > now (ever since we moved away from K&R C to ISO C90). It really > makes doing the sort of changes that Pedro is making a lot less > labour intensive. My request was only about go32-nat.c, for which I'm personally responsible. I'm not going to argue with other maintainers about the rest of the files, and won't even dream to impose my personal preferences on others. > And I disagree that they are unrelated to the changes he is making. There's nothing wrong in disagreeing.