This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] enum enable
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Subject: Re: [RFA] enum enable
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at zwingli dot cygnus dot com>
- Date: 31 Jul 2001 18:34:17 -0500
- Cc: msnyder at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com,ac131313 at cygnus dot com
- References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010731114556.1042J-100000@is>
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> I attach below, after the error messages, the part of patch for
> printcmd.c, which clearly shows that _all_ of the lines for which GCC
> complained on your machine should in fact have been patched by the
> patch I posted. How come it didn't work for you?
That part of the patch doesn't appear in your most recent post:
Subject: Re: [RFA] enum enable
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:26:35 +0300 (IDT)
Message-Id: <200107251426.RAA18009@is.elta.co.il>
It mentions printcmd.c in the ChangeLog, but that filename appears
nowhere else in the patch:
11 lines matching "^\\+\\+\\+" in buffer *Article*.
100:+++ gdb/breakpoint.h Sat Jul 14 13:09:40 2001
156:+++ gdb/breakpoint.c Sat Jul 14 13:21:16 2001
921:+++ gdb/memattr.h Sat Jul 14 12:17:06 2001
936:+++ gdb/memattr.c Sat Jul 14 12:15:44 2001
1020:+++ gdb/tracepoint.h Sat Jul 14 12:29:56 2001
1046:+++ gdb/tracepoint.c Wed Jul 25 16:52:18 2001
1091:+++ gdb/infcmd.c Sat Jul 14 13:16:06 2001
1104:+++ gdb/go32-nat.c Sat Jul 14 12:04:50 2001
1129:+++ gdb/tui/tuiDisassem.c Sat Jul 14 13:18:18 2001
1142:+++ gdb/tui/tuiSource.c Sat Jul 14 13:20:46 2001
1155:+++ gdb/tui/tuiSourceWin.c Sat Jul 14 13:19:42 2001
I suspect your first patch had a similar problem, too.