From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14604 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2002 06:56:13 -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 14591 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2002 06:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dc-mx10.cluster1.charter.net) (209.225.8.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Nov 2002 06:56:11 -0000 Received: from [66.189.46.2] (HELO platinum.local.) by dc-mx10.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9) with ESMTP id 30776908; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 01:56:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:56:00 -0000 Subject: Re: [RFA] Replace strdup with xstrdup in tic30-dis.c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) Cc: Andrew Cagney , binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com To: Alan Modra From: Klee Dienes In-Reply-To: <20021120230847.GI997@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> Message-Id: <4D2AFB6A-FD1E-11D6-B723-00039396EEB8@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2 Was the final decision from the earlier discussion as simple as: 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. (After all, it's been almost a week since I broke GAS for some processor I've never heard of. What fun is that?) On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 06:08 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >>> I'm not arguing against a "no xmalloc in new code" rule, just that an >>> unchecked xmalloc is better than an unchecked malloc. >> >> Which reminds me, how is the elimination of true/false from "bfd.h" >> going? > > Has that become my job?? ;)