This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Register group proposal
- To: ac131313 at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Register group proposal
- From: Nick Duffek <nsd at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:24:10 -0500
- CC: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, insight at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <3A9547ED.E7CFE51C@cygnus.com>
On 22-Feb-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>And that illustrates the problem - why should "abc.h" suck in "xyz.h"
>when clients of "abc.h" may not use any of "xyz"'s methods.
So that we may use typedefs in the standard and obvious manner.
What's the problem with "abc.h" sucking in "xyz.h"? The usual "#ifndef
abc_h" envelope takes care of multiple-inclusion problems.
>The use of ``typedef struct'' in new interfaces, however, is strongly
Again, is this official policy? I don't see any references to typedefs in
I think there should be explicit agreement by the GDB community before we
adopt such an unusual standard. Maybe there has been, though, and I've