From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-38611-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 18103 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2005 10:12:55 -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 16156 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2005 10:11:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO emea1-mh.id2.novell.com) (195.33.99.129)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Mar 2005 10:11:15 -0000
Received: from EMEA1-MTA by emea1-mh.id2.novell.com
	with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:11:14 +0100
Message-Id: <s22ecbc2.084@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:12:00 -0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: <twall@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: <binutils@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: gas/config/tc-tic54x.c's use of macro_struct and formal_struct
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2

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.

Thanks, Jan