This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

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

Re: [PATCH RFC] Protoize m32r-stub.c, m88k-nat.c, m88k-tdep.c

To: jtc at redback dot com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Protoize m32r-stub.c, m88k-nat.c, m88k-tdep.c
From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:50:42 -0700
CC: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <1000915073306.ZM4195@ocotillo.lan> <5mk8cdzgri.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <1000915181249.ZM5172@ocotillo.lan> <5mwvgdy09h.fsf@jtc.redback.com>

"J.T. Conklin" wrote:
> 
> I'm pretty ambivilent about it myself.  In my experience, beyond toy
> programs, stubs get hacked quite extensively to integrate them into
> the target system.  Removing protototypes would be the least of the
> user's worries.

So can you imagine any possible circumstance in which having a
prototyped and/or ISO stub would be a problem for an actual
embedded system developer today?  The only example I can synthesize
involves somebody that can only use GDB with one of Sun's old compilers
adapted for embedded use, but not GCC.  That's pretty farfetched though,
and I've never heard of an actual case like that.

Stan

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH RFC] Protoize m32r-stub.c, m88k-nat.c, m88k-tdep.c
  - From: J.T. Conklin

References:
- [PATCH RFC] Protoize m32r-stub.c, m88k-nat.c, m88k-tdep.c
  - From: Kevin Buettner
- Re: [PATCH RFC] Protoize m32r-stub.c, m88k-nat.c, m88k-tdep.c
  - From: J.T. Conklin
- Re: [PATCH RFC] Protoize m32r-stub.c, m88k-nat.c, m88k-tdep.c
  - From: Kevin Buettner
- Re: [PATCH RFC] Protoize m32r-stub.c, m88k-nat.c, m88k-tdep.c
  - From: J.T. Conklin

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