This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [ob] user-regs.c build fix for arm-linux
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:05:02 -0500
- Subject: Re: [ob] user-regs.c build fix for arm-linux
- References: <20040228173121.GA15679@nevyn.them.org> <4040D178.2050405@gnu.org> <20040228183027.GA17364@nevyn.them.org> <4040E2CC.6010603@gnu.org> <20040229165929.GG15749@nevyn.them.org>
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 11:59:29AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:49:48PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 12:35:52PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>>+/* We call this gdb_user_regs instead of user_regs to avoid conflicts
> > >>>>with
> > >>>>>+ any struct user_regs in system headers (for instance, ARM
> > >>>>GNU/Linux). >*/
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>Please be more explicit.
> > >
> > >
> > >What else would you like to know? What header it comes from?
> >
> > Er, yes? The comment should describe the exact cause of the problem.
> > Otherwize there is no way to audit this stuff later.
>
> Is this better?
> 2004-02-29 Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
>
> * user-regs.c: Update copyright years.
> (struct user_regs): Rename to gdb_user_regs.
> (append_user_reg, builtin_user_regs, user_regs_init)
> (user_reg_add, user_reg_map_name_to_regnum)
> (usernum_to_user_reg): Update.
I've checked this in...
> + declares "struc user_regs". */
And fixed the typo in it.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer