Joseph S. Myers wrote:
The most obvious users of these definitions would be (native) GDB and
gdbserver - do those still build OK (i.e. include the correct headers to
get the definitions they need and not rely on any definitions that were
removed) after this patch?
I have built the debian gdb
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, peter green wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > The most obvious users of these definitions would be (native) GDB and
> > gdbserver - do those still build OK (i.e. include the correct headers to get
> > the definitions they need and not rely on any definitions that were remove
On arm linux sys/ucontext.h heavilly polloutes the global
namespace firstly by including sys/user.h (which defines
among other things a type called "struct user" and secondly
by defining symbols and #defines named R? to represent
the processor registers.
That issue in itself is nothing new but fa
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, peter green wrote:
> On the issue of the R? definitions I proposed renaming them
> to REG_R?. The use of a REG_ prefix is consistent with
> x86, x64 and sparc (I couldn't find any comparable definitions
> at all on other architectures I looked at) I asked what the
> impact of
