Re: More gdb-4.17.85 testresults

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

Hello,

[Stan, JimB, as chief maintainer and GDB 4.18 people see end]

rodneybrown@pmsc.com wrote:

> /opt/ansic/bin/cc:  # hppa2.0-hp-hpux10.20
>     HP92453-01 G.10.32.05 HP C Compiler
>
> cc -Ae -c -g -D__HP_CURSES \
>     -I. -I../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb -I../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/config \
>     -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/../include/opcode \
>     -I../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/../readline/.. -I../bfd \
>     -I../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/../bfd -I../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/../include \
>     -I../intl -I../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/../intl -I../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/tui \
>     ../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/remote.c

[...]

> cc: "../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/remote.c", line 693: \
>     error 1711: Inconsistent parameter list declaration for "pack_hex_byte".

This one puzzles me.  Looking in remote.c I see:

    static char *pack_hex_byte PARAMS ((char *pkt, unsigned char byte));

and then:

    static char *
    pack_hex_byte (pkt, byte)
         char *pkt;
         unsigned char byte;
    {

Is this error because HP's compiler doesn't like the `unsigned char' parameter.?

> cc: "../../gdb-4.17.85/gdb/remote.c", line 3046: \
>     error 1711: Inconsistent parameter list declaration for "remote_query".
>

    static int remote_query PARAMS ((char, char *, char *, int *));

and:

    static int
    remote_query (query_type, buf, outbuf, bufsiz)
         char query_type;
         char *buf;
         char *outbuf;
         int *bufsiz;

This time I've no idea's as to what HP's ansic doesn't like about it.  Any
suggestions?

Assuming that HP's compiler reporting errors because it has problems with prototyped
and non-prototyped code, I can see two solutions: disable PARAMS for that
host/compiler combination; make those problem functions part of the ANSI experiment?

Stan, JimB, thoughts?

    Andrew

PS: W.R.T. the other warnings, a glance over them suggests that, while it would be
nice to clean them up, it isn't something to attempt in the GDB-4.18 time frame.
Having 4.19 compile cleanly on on a select list of hosts, however, is certainly an
achievable goal.