This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Remove parameter names from libiberty.h
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>,"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,amodra at bigpond dot net dot au, dj at redhat dot com, Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:18:04 -0700
- Subject: Re: Remove parameter names from libiberty.h
- References: <BE8402CB.9CF2%schlie@comcast.net> <200504141617.j3EGHBFt014053@earth.phy.uc.edu>
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:17:11PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > > Kaveh R. Ghazi writes:
> > > As noted here:
> > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-04/msg00269.html
> > >
> > > The new f*open_unlocked function prototypes in libiberty.h are in
> > > conflict with binutils sources because one of the parameter names
> > > ("mode") gets defined to "31" and the build dies.
> >
> > Why not alternatively fix the real problem (as you had noted), as opposed to
> > indirectly establishing the policy that libiberty prototypes don't include
> > parameter names (as it doesn't seem like the true solution to the problem).
>
> I don't know why I am replying to you but ...
> Anyways there is no other way to fix the problem correctly. If we change
> the parameter name, someone else might have defined it so we get into
> a cycle.
>
There are many prototypes in libiberty.h with names.
H.J.