From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27889 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2004 16:21:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27880 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2004 16:21:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Jun 2004 16:21:34 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i59GLYi5029195 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:21:34 -0400 Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i59GLW002176; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:21:32 -0400 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Paul Hilfinger , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Turn on Ada support References: <20040608090758.C59CAF2940@nile.gnat.com> <20040609131240.GA7587@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:21:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040609131240.GA7587@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:23:18AM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > The changes to symtab.c, symfile.c, defs.h, and gdbtypes.h are fine. > > > > I don't like the braces around the lone 'return' statements in > > symtab.c, though. I don't think they add much, although what's > > probably more germane is that it's not the typical practice elsewhere > > in the code. > > I'm not sure if those parts will work without the Makefile.in changes, > and I'm not in favor of the Makefile.in changes yet. > > The problem is that the Ada language support has never been reviewed. > It's in the repository as a code dump under the assumption that it will > be reviewed before we start actively using it. So in my opinion, to > review this patch we first have to review those files. Okay, that makes sense.