This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Readline: Cleanup some warnings
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Alan Hayward <Alan dot Hayward at arm dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 12:05:33 +0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Readline: Cleanup some warnings
- References: <20190130085716.75179-1-alan.hayward@arm.com> <20190131075907.GA313@adacore.com> <F71F4EDA-CBDF-4B05-B9C2-588D02471EB2@arm.com> <3463805B-A8BF-4C20-ACE3-C21AE3F7DB62@arm.com>
> >> If it is a backport
> >
> > Technically, not a back port because I wrote the changes then realised
> > they are the same as upstream. Just a quick thought - would it help
> > with future rebasing if I ensured the changes were *exactly* the same?
> > (For example, the config.h.in changes are in a different place in the
> > file with different comments).
> >
> >> from mainline readline, and you've run
> >> the testsuite (readline is being necessarily extensively covered,
> >> but at least it is used implicitly, since it provides the framework
> >> for the interactive prompt, which is being driven via expect/tcl),
> >> it's OK to push.
>
> Thinking about what you said, I’ve updated the config.h.in code so it
> is a direct backport, and pushed. Functionally it’s the same as the
> original version. Patch pasted below.
Thank you. It's always better if it is an exact backport, because
it facilitates future resyncs with the upstream versions.
--
Joel