[Crash-utility] [PATCH] Fix C99 compatibility issues in embedded copy of GDB

[Florian Weimer]

> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 5:40 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>  > BTW: Could you please follow the current styles of gdb-10.2patch?
>  > +diff --git gdb-10.2.orig/bfd/elf-bfd.h gdb-10.2/bfd/elf-bfd.h
>  > +index eebdf9a..775d96c 100644
>  > +--- gdb-10.2.orig/bfd/elf-bfd.h
>  > ++++ gdb-10.2/bfd/elf-bfd.h
>  > Usually, the above styles are not recommended.
>
>  What exactly don't you like about it?  It's just regular git diff output
>  with different prefixes.
>
> Sorry about it, Florian. I should provide an example to describe more details as below:
> ...
> +	gdb-10.2/readline/readline/configure.ac \
>  
>  exit 0
>  
> @@ -2078,3 +2085,1013 @@ exit 0
>   
>     return new_type;
>   }
> +diff --git gdb-10.2.orig/bfd/elf-bfd.h gdb-10.2/bfd/elf-bfd.h  --->remove
> +index eebdf9a..775d96c 100644                                  --->remove
> +--- gdb-10.2.orig/bfd/elf-bfd.h  --->change to gdb-10.2/bfd/elf-bfd.h.orig
> ++++ gdb-10.2/bfd/elf-bfd.h
> +@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
> + #include "elf/internal.h"
> + #include "bfdlink.h"
> + 
> ++#include <string.h>
> ++
> ... 
> The above styles are currently recommended and can be consistent with the current gdb-10.2.patch.

Sorry, I still don't understand.  You are quoting from my patch.  Does
it follow the required style or not?

Could you make the required style changes yourself and push it?

Thanks,
Florian