From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>
To: ac131313@cygnus.com
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, insight@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Register group proposal
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:15:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102221824.f1MIOAM03260@rtl.cygnus.com>
References: <3A9547ED.E7CFE51C@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00304.html

On 22-Feb-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>And that illustrates the problem - why should "abc.h" suck in "xyz.h"
>when clients of "abc.h" may not use any of "xyz"'s methods.

So that we may use typedefs in the standard and obvious manner.

What's the problem with "abc.h" sucking in "xyz.h"?  The usual "#ifndef
abc_h" envelope takes care of multiple-inclusion problems.

>The use of ``typedef struct'' in new interfaces, however, is strongly
>discouraged.

Again, is this official policy?  I don't see any references to typedefs in
gdbint.texinfo.

I think there should be explicit agreement by the GDB community before we
adopt such an unusual standard.  Maybe there has been, though, and I've
missed it.

Nick