From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12823 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2005 16:18:00 -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 12301 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2005 16:17:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bethe.phy.uc.edu) (129.137.4.14) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Apr 2005 16:17:45 -0000 Received: from earth.geop.uc.edu (earth.phy.uc.edu [10.44.11.234]) by bethe.phy.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j3EGHDWo026270; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:17:13 -0400 Received: from earth.phy.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by earth.geop.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.9.3) with ESMTP id j3EGHCiN014054; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:17:13 -0400 Received: (from pinskia@localhost) by earth.phy.uc.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j3EGHBFt014053; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:17:11 -0400 From: Andrew Pinski Message-Id: <200504141617.j3EGHBFt014053@earth.phy.uc.edu> Subject: Re: Remove parameter names from libiberty.h To: schlie@comcast.net (Paul Schlie) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:18:00 -0000 Cc: ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu (Kaveh R. Ghazi), binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, amodra@bigpond.net.au, dj@redhat.com, ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -104.901 () BAYES_00,USER_IN_WHITELIST X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00378.txt.bz2 > > > Kaveh R. Ghazi writes: > > As noted here: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-04/msg00269.html > > > > The new f*open_unlocked function prototypes in libiberty.h are in > > conflict with binutils sources because one of the parameter names > > ("mode") gets defined to "31" and the build dies. > > Why not alternatively fix the real problem (as you had noted), as opposed to > indirectly establishing the policy that libiberty prototypes don't include > parameter names (as it doesn't seem like the true solution to the problem). I don't know why I am replying to you but ... Anyways there is no other way to fix the problem correctly. If we change the parameter name, someone else might have defined it so we get into a cycle. -- Pinski