On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 15:55 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > > > Thomas, > > Thanks for the reply. Are you saying I should wrap those includes > around an #ifdef MACH_KDB up where the other includes are? If so, that > makes sense to me.
I did not check whether the MACH_KDB check is right. But on the assumption that it is, yes, it still belongs up above. I think the very next file after this one in your patch was an example of it done right. Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
