From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19449 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2004 17:20:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19377 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2004 17:20:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Nov 2004 17:20:42 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.154.12]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id DWB60011 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:20:22 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:20:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c4c8db$Blat.v2.2.2$377f5020@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, joseph@codesourcery.com, kevinb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4194DBEB.6010304@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:51:07 -0500) Subject: Re: Assume solib.h Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4193BFA0.3060607@gnu.org> <200411112005.iABK5FrV098628@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4193DDCE.7060205@gnu.org> <200411112224.iABMODmo099121@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4194DBEB.6010304@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00266.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:51:07 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: joseph@codesourcery.com, kevinb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > please don't check in something like this without testing > > this on some sort of embedded target, vax-dec-openbsd* or > > vax-dec-ultrix4*. > > I'm really really sorry here (and remember I also hack on *BSD, even > down to kernel fixes - you're hardly a voice in the wilderness on this > one). We can't do this. > > My change allows Code Sorcery to achieve their goal of getting Solaris > 10 support in GDB, while at the same time allow us to move forward with > our objective of improving support for GNU, GNU/Linux and even the other > mainstream Free and non-Free platform support. > > We win - Code Sorcery Wins; we have a symbiotic relationship. > > On the other hand, by effectively requiring that a contributor must > first test/fix a change on marginal if not irrelevant systems such as > vax-dec-ultrix4 (the suggestion also carried other less pleasant > undertones), can only stall the host's (GDB's) development. Isn't that > called a parasitic relationship? I'm with Mark on this one: a patch that potentially breaks a supported platform doesn't get my vote. If a platform is supported, it deserves that we don't break it, and calling it ``marginal'' doesn't change anything. I don't see how any affiliation we might have with Code Sorcery justifies that we do partial job when checking in a change. If they want Solaris support that badly, they can use your changes locally.