From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19841 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2003 22:24:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19833 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2003 22:24:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (209.53.16.215) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2003 22:24:10 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id AEFD8D34B8; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:24:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 22:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [6] What if EXTRA_FRAME_INFO wasn't required Message-ID: <20030331222401.GE916@gnat.com> References: <3E84BFD5.3080304@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E84BFD5.3080304@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00424.txt.bz2 Andrew, > If the need to convert EXTRA_FRAME_INFO was dropped as a barrier to > having HP/UX multi-arch partial, would anything else be left? Good news, it turned out that this macro was actually not needed (the new field was never used). I therefore just deleted it. I guess you can now finally make the frame_info struct opaque. Ref: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-03/msg00617.html -- Joel