From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4320 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2002 22:37:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4312 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2002 22:37:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01ps.bigpond.com) (144.135.25.133) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2002 22:37:49 -0000 Received: from bubble.local ([144.135.25.81]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta01ps Jul 16 2002 22:47:55) with SMTP id H67G6Z00.0C0 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:37:47 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-136-184-243.sa.bigpond.net.au ([144.136.184.243]) by psmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0n 107/8907352); 27 Nov 2002 08:37:47 Received: (qmail 9224 invoked by uid 179); 26 Nov 2002 22:37:46 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:37:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Klee Dienes , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c Message-ID: <20021126223746.GQ949@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Klee Dienes , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <4D2AFB6A-FD1E-11D6-B723-00039396EEB8@apple.com> <3DE3EFC4.2010209@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DE3EFC4.2010209@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:03:48PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Was the final decision from the earlier discussion as simple as: > > I don't know if anyone came up with an implementation proposal, just > that ``true'' and ``false'' and ``boolean'' should be removed from "bfd.h". Heh, Andrew isn't letting this die. :) > >typedef int bfd_boolean; > > > >s/boolean/bfd_boolean > >s/true/1 > >s/false/0 > > > >and deal with the fallout? If so, I'm willing to do the conversion and > >post a patch. This sort of patch is probably best left to a global maintainer. It's almost as much work to review such a patch (mainly checking that true and false in comments are unchanged) as it is to generate. Hmm, I'm inclined to just use "int" directly rather than introduce a "bfd_boolean". Unless I hear objections, that's what I'll do one of these days.. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre