From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCE2B3857C40 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 21:18:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org DCE2B3857C40 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 591881ECFF; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 17:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement the skip_solib_resolver gdbarch hook for FreeBSD architectures. To: Tom Tromey , John Baldwin Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200711161431.25593-1-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <87v9itrhe0.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 17:18:34 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87v9itrhe0.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 21:18:38 -0000 On 2020-07-11 3:17 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "John" == John Baldwin writes: > > John> +CORE_ADDR > John> +mips_fbsd_skip_solib_resolver (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc) > John> +{ > > I think this should be "static". > > Tom > Oh right, and that should generate a warning, doesn't it?