This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA]: Turn on initial Ada support in GDB
> > * Makefile.in (ada_lex_c): Define
> > (HFILES_NO_SRCDIR): Add ada-lang.h.
>
> Can these two lines be put on hold for a moment, there's a symtab change
> that should be run past the symtab reviewer.
>
> > (COMMON_OBS): Add ada-lang.o, ada-typeprint.o, ada-valprint.o.
> > (YYOBJ): Add ada-exp.o.
>
> otherwize all the Makefile stuff can go in.
>
> > (rule .l.c): Generalize to not mention ada.
> > (ada-lex.o): Remove (ada-lex.c is included by ada-exp.y).
>
> ... dig dig, ah, bleaugh :-) Leave this for the moment -> I'll tweak
> gdb_makefile.sh to better handle this. Just wonder if the above should
> be changed from .l.c to .l.h. (but which ever)?
As for .h vs. .c here: I dunno. I've always thought of .h as meaning
"header" rather than "included". Besides, if we think of .l.c as a
general 'lex' rule, lex-generated files can just as easily be standalone
as not.
So this is all approved save the HFILES_NO_SRCDIR thing? I see you
put in ada_lex_c already.
> > * gdbtypes.h (TYPE_FLAG_FIXED_INSTANCE): Define.
>
> It isn't used.
It's used in several places in ada-lang.c (but not in this patch; it's already
in ada-lang.c, and this patch is needed to make it work).
> > doc ChangeLog:
> >
> > 2004-09-22 Paul N. Hilfinger <hilfinger@gnat.com>
> >
> > * gdb.texinfo (Filenames): Add Ada suffixes.
> > (Ada) New section.
>
> For Eli, suggest posting it separatly.
I see that Eli already responded, and I will make the requested changes
before committing.
OK. So where does this leave us? Does all of this amount to a "go"?
Paul