Re: [commit] Fix prototype related breakage in go32-nat.c

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

On Saturday 11 April 2009 20:27:23, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> > Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:16:09 +0100
> > 
> > On Saturday 11 April 2009 18:59:20, Eli Zaretskii write:
> > > Didn't we agree at the time that the prototypes should be corrected as
> > > well?
> > 
> > You're probably confused...  those functions were changed
> > much prior to that agreement:
> 
> Sorry.  It's easy to become confused when modified functions are not
> mentioned in the logs.
> 
> > it was a simple lapse, one that wouldn't happen if these functions
> > weren't needlessly forward declared.
> 
> We agreed to keep the prototypes, so I'm really surprised that this
> issue is brought up again.  What is the purpose of reviving this dead
> horse?  As you point out correctly, the problem happened before the
> dispute, so why did you need this ``told you so'' reminder?

Huh, what's with *that* attitude?  You know *now* that this happened
before the dispute, but you didn't when you posted the patch and
the question "Didn't we agree at the time that the prototypes
should be corrected as well?" --- why did you need to ask it?

> Btw, it's obvious that no one tried to compile go32-nat.c since then.
> How can we be sure we don't break targets if they are not regularly
> built?

Right, last time I built it was on August 2008, which resulted in
the wiki page at <http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BuildingOnDJGPP>.   I
can only assume that people interested in keeping the port alive will be
the people that build it most frequently.  And I assumed that
the port maintainer would build it regularly.

> Didn't Andrew set up such a build at the time?

I have no idea what talking about here.  If you're talking
about Cagney, all his work predates me.

> > (and we agreed to *keep* the prototypes.  Obviously, if they
> > are to keep, they need to be adjusted, there's no need to agree
> > on that)
> 
> We don't need to agree on that, but we do need to keep them adjusted,
> and I think it's the job of whoever makes the change to take care of
> that.

Obviously, we're saying the same thing.  However, typos, lapses and
mistakes do happen.

> Thanks, I fixed these.

Thanks.

-- 
Pedro Alves