From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18076 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2002 15:08:19 -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 17914 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 15:08:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 15:08:07 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA23919; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id AC1B4112E4; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:07:34 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15512.42422.404336.174227@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:08:00 -0000 To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Elena Zannoni , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB CVS won't build on OSF4.0's cc In-Reply-To: References: <15134.37007.772051.431723@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <15140.51449.939073.693253@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <15511.30770.115770.867801@localhost.redhat.com> <15511.34746.193064.112834@localhost.redhat.com> <3C97F673.7080306@cygnus.com> <15512.4777.468034.323283@localhost.redhat.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 Alexandre Oliva writes: > On Mar 20, 2002, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > Andrew Cagney writes: > > >> > Other than the one that came with the patch posted to this mailing > >> > list? I don't think so? Should I create one, install the patch and > >> > then close it? > >> > >> I counted 4 or 5! You should look at gdb/390, there may still be > >> ``issues''. > > > There is also 294 (which is essentially a duplicate of 390). Alex, > > can you take a look? Maybe your configury test needs to be made a bit > > more sophisticated. > > This is a totally different subject. This patch is for a build error > on OSF1/DU/Tru64. Both PRs you mention are about TOC problems on > AIX. Sorry! Both Andrew and I were thinking of this other thread: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-02/msg00059.html > > >> > I'm not aware of such GDB policies :-( > > >> I think people doing this are viewed in a positive light (however there > >> isn't any strict requirement :-). > > I never thought such a simple patch would take so long to get in (my > fault; I dropped the ball in revising the patch as requested for a > long while). Anyway, when a patch is ready, I see little value in > creating a PR. To me, it feels like pure overhead. If you have a > different opinion, please enlighten me :-) > Are any of the priority==high bugs related to this (as opposed to the minimal-toc) problem? Elena > -- > Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ > Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com} > CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} > Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer