RE: [RFC] ARI fix: Replace sys/wait.h by gdb_wait.h in linux-fork.c

["Pierre Muller" <muller at ics dot u-strasbg dot fr>]

Thanks, committed.

Pierre Muller

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-
> owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Joel Brobecker
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:02 PM
> To: Pierre Muller
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC] ARI fix: Replace sys/wait.h by gdb_wait.h in linux-
> fork.c
> 
> Hello Pascal,
> 
> > 2007-10-04  Pierre Muller  <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> >
> >         * linux-fork.c: ARI fix: include "gdb_wait.h" instead of
> <sys/wait.h>.
> >         Makefile.in (linux-fork.o): Add gdb_wait.h dependency.
> 
> This patch is OK. I ran it against the regression testsuite just
> to double-check.
> 
> > 2) Are there rules about the order in which
> > the different headers are listed?
> 
> There are some rules, like "defs.h" should always be included first.
> 
> Usually speaking, in C, I always try to write include files in a way
> that the order in which I include them is not important. To the best
> or my knowledge, GDB also tries to accomplish that.
> 
> > I did put the gdb_wait.h together with other local
> > headers, which seems to be a common practice in GDB sources.
> 
> That's perfect.
> 
> > 3) I also updated the dependency of linux-fork.o in
> > Makefile.in, but stumbled on the same problem:
> > is there some preferred ordering of the dependency list?
> 
> I don't know if there is a prefered ordering. Definitely, the ordering
> in the makefile does not matter, but I try to maintain the dependency
> list in the same order as the includes. It makes it a lot simpler to
> double-check that the list is still accurate. So your change is great.
> 
> > trying to reduce ARIs...
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> --
> Joel