[patch] remove in_system_header variable and fields

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Rafael Espindola <espindola@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> One thing I do not fully appreciate and I hope Rafael will shed some
>> light is that warning0() was supposed to be a transitional function --
>> scheduled to `disappear' soon when it was introduced.  Now, we seem to
>> build another function warning0_at().  Why?  Can't we just get rid
>> of warning0() and warning0_at()?
>
> I was unaware of that. I added warning0_at for completeness. The
> attached patch has no warning0_at. Is it OK for trunk?

yes, thanks.

>
>
>> -- Gaby
>>
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Rafael Avila de Espindola
>
> Google Ireland Ltd.
> Gordon House
> Barrow Street
> Dublin 4
> Ireland
>
> Registered in Dublin, Ireland
> Registration Number: 368047
>