This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFA] compilation warnings in bfd on Alpha/Tru64

From: Jerome Guitton <guitton at adacore dot com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:17:12 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFA] compilation warnings in bfd on Alpha/Tru64
References: <20050418190649.GA10768@adacore.com> <200504182113.j3ILDP3w023021@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>

Mark Kettenis (mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl):

> Hmm.  Shouldn't we start using the standard AC_CHECK_DECL instead of
> BFD_NEEDED_DECLARATION?

I am certainly *not* the good person to answer this question ;-)
It is quite easy to change from one to another, I would say. Why
BFD_NEEDED_DECLARATION was defined in the first place?

-- 
Jerome

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] compilation warnings in bfd on Alpha/Tru64
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

References:
- [RFA] compilation warnings in bfd on Alpha/Tru64
  - From: Jerome Guitton
- Re: [RFA] compilation warnings in bfd on Alpha/Tru64
  - From: Mark Kettenis

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