This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH RFA] Pascal language part 3: Changes to Makefile.in
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>, Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] Pascal language part 3: Changes to Makefile.in
- From: Pierre Muller <muller at cerbere dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:56:10 +0200
- Cc: taylor at cygnus dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <200006191043.MAA24719@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr><200006191043.MAA24719@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
At 02:54 24/06/00 -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:17:39 +0200
>> From: Pierre Muller <muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr>
>>
>> ChangeLog entry:
>>
>> 2000-06-19 Muller Pierre <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
>> * Makefile.in: add rules to compile and link pascal specific files.
>
>Sorry for the long delay in reacting to this.
>
>> + # p-exp.tab.c is generated in objdir from p-exp.y if it doesn't exist
>> + # in srcdir, then compiled in objdir to p-exp.tab.o.
>
>The new file p-exp.tab.c needs a line to be added to
>gdb/config/djgpp/fnchange.lst, like this:
>
> @V@/gdb/p-exp.tab.c @V@/gdb/p-exp_tab.c
Should I ally this patch together with the Makefile.in changes or just
send a mail to Eli to ask him to check this patch in when I check in the
Makefile.in changes.
For the moment, I still got no replies about the validity of the patch
itself.
Did someone already try to recompile GDB after applying this patch?
I was in particular unsure about possible problems when cross-compiling
from or
to processors having different int or pointer type length.
Pierre Muller
Institut Charles Sadron
6,rue Boussingault
F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France)
mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07 Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99