From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-38619-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 4225 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2005 12:44:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 3878 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2005 12:44:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2005 12:44:24 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j29CiO9I005137
	for <binutils@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 07:44:24 -0500
Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j29CiNn07852;
	Wed, 9 Mar 2005 07:44:23 -0500
Received: from [172.31.0.98] (vpnuser4.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.9.4])
	by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j29CiMpa028221;
	Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:44:22 GMT
Message-ID: <422EF27C.2000609@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:44:00 -0000
From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
CC: twall@alum.mit.edu, binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gas/config/tc-tic54x.c's use of macro_struct and formal_struct
References: <s22ecbc2.084@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com>
In-Reply-To: <s22ecbc2.084@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00269.txt.bz2

Hi Jan,

> As I'm intending to add one or two elements to macro_struct (to allow
> .purgem to free the memory allocated by .macro) I'd like to understand
> what, if any, reasons there are for this file, in function
> tic54x_macro_info, to redeclare these two structures instead of using
> them (or even better their typedef equivalents) from the already
> included macro.h.

As far as I can tell this was an ill-advised piece of coding.  The 
typedefs from macro.h should have been used as you suggested.  Please 
feel free to contribute a patch to do just this.

Cheers
   Nick