From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16090 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2004 17:08:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15903 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2004 17:08:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 2004 17:08:20 -0000 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iA9H7Fso003160; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:07:15 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iA9H7rgK027910; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:07:54 GMT Received: (from rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id iA9H7rrk027908; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:07:53 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha set sender to rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org using -f Subject: Re: PATCH: Fix typo in elf32-arm.c From: Richard Earnshaw To: Mark Mitchell Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, dan@codesourcery.com In-Reply-To: <200411091654.iA9Gs0c8027630@sirius.codesourcery.com> References: <200411091654.iA9Gs0c8027630@sirius.codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: GNU Message-Id: <1100020071.19841.30.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:08:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:54, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Dan Jacobowitz says that I have introduced a warning in elf32-arm.c, > at least when being compiled with newer compilers, due to an incorrect > declaration of elf32_arm_symbian_begin_write_processing. (I declared > it to take a bfd_boolean as its second parameter, even though that it > is clearly incorrect.) While fixing that, I also eliminated the K&R > declarations I had introduced, now that I understand that binutils is > OK with ANSI declarations. > > I took the liberty of checking in this patch. Was that inappropriate? > In GCC, this check-in would be OK under the "obvious" rule, but I'm > not sure what the binutils rules are. I understand that there are similar 'obvious' rules in binutils. In this case the patch is fine anyway. R.