This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: PATCH, Re: gprof failed to compile

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
To: Tom Rix <trix at redhat dot com>
Cc: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:41:51 -0500
Subject: Re: PATCH, Re: gprof failed to compile
References: <20020131004034.A11597@lucon.org> <20020131102905.GS16187@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <20020131125325.GV16187@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <3C597E69.4BD7BF24@redhat.com>

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:27:05AM -0600, Tom Rix wrote:
> I am getting a new build error for gprof on AIX.
> 
> Looks like it is caused by not typedef-ing bool.
> 
> >
> >         * gprof.h: Don't include ansidecl.h, do include bfd.h.
> >         (bool): Don't typedef.
> 
> The included patch reverts the bool to typedef-ed to int.
> 
> Ok to commit?

No, not OK.  The whole point was that we may now typedef bool in
"bfd.h".

Consider seeing what breaks if you typedef bool in bfd.h on the
non-<stdbool.h> code path?


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH, Re: gprof failed to compile
  - From: Doug Evans
- PATCH v2, Re: gprof failed to compile
  - From: Tom Rix

References:
- gprof failed to compile
  - From: H . J . Lu
- Re: gprof failed to compile
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: gprof failed to compile
  - From: Alan Modra
- PATCH, Re: gprof failed to compile
  - From: Tom Rix

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]