From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1805 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2010 04:38:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 1794 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2010 04:38:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Sep 2010 04:38:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4A32BAC29; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id p1Sx-sTKUni2; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9849F2BABF9; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 487DAF599F; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:38:10 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 04:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] include alloca.h if available. Message-ID: <20100901043810.GW2986@adacore.com> References: <1283281511-30193-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201008312055.40504.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100901015944.GT2986@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100901015944.GT2986@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 > If it is just for malloc, it sounds like the include is no longer > necessary? Unless of course malloc.h is the only location where > alloca is defined on mingw32. I just checked, and from what I can tell, no alloca.h on MinGW. So the question is: Do we want to group all includes of malloc.h in server.h? I don't see any strong reason to believe that one way or the other is better, so I can live with the status quo. But I'm happy to group them all, or even move the include of alloca.h inside the various .c file as needed (it seems odd, now that I think of it, to include alloca.h in server.h, and yet have the includes of malloc.h spread out in the .c files). -- Joel