This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Patch to allow compilation by Sun cc
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFC: Patch to allow compilation by Sun cc
- From: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr at EECS dot Berkeley dot EDU>
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 11:05:39 -0800
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: Hilfinger at cs dot berkeley dot edu
OK, this was annoying:
1. That particular parameter is actually an enum target_signal, and
some calls of this macro supply that.
2. So I ought to declare it as enum target_signal in the header file,
BUT
3. We apparently can't count on enum target_signal being defined when
the header is included.
4. Thus, this compromise.
If there's a right way to do this, I'd REALLY like to know. We can,
of course, just leave off the cast, but I wanted to avoid warnings and
explicitly acknowledge that there is something dicey here.
Paul
>
> > *************** extern void sparc32_extract_return_value
> > *** 738,744 ****
> >
> > #define SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P 1
> > extern void sparc_software_single_step (unsigned int, int);
> > ! #define SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP(sig,bp_p) sparc_software_single_step (sig,b
p_p)
> >
> > /* We need more arguments in a frame specification for the
> > "frame" or "info frame" command. */
> > --- 738,745 ----
> >
> > #define SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P 1
> > extern void sparc_software_single_step (unsigned int, int);
> > ! #define SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP(sig,bp_p) \
> > ! sparc_software_single_step ((unsigned int) (sig),bp_p)
> >
> > /* We need more arguments in a frame specification for the
> > "frame" or "info frame" command. */
>
> This bit looks wrong. Why is a cast needed?
>
> Andrew