From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4762 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2002 19:38:22 -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 4754 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2002 19:38:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 19:38:19 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16r2CS-00058q-00; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:38:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: FYI: gdbserver branch merges Message-ID: <20020329143812.A5877@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andreas Jaeger , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020329141059.B12204@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 08:31:57PM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > I've moved these patches to the branch. This is all the gdbserver > > changes except for x86-64 (which was too invasive, and I don't consider > > urgent since x86-64 is not yet a production architecture) since we > > branched. For the signals code I created new files without removing > > the old definitions. > > For when is 5.2 planned and when is the next release? Since x86-64 is I don't know what the current plan is, but it should be within the next two/three weeks if all goes well. > currently not production ready, we can make big changes. The first > hammer systems are going to ship by the end of the year so that I > expect that we'll use GDB 5.2 on them. Could you rethink this, > please? There should be another release by then; I think Andrew was hoping for one mid-April and one in late September. If you'd prefer to have the x86-64 changes on the branch you're welcome to merge them; I was just doing the bits I was confident in, and the x86-64 changes were too large for someone who doesn't know anything about the port to merge safely. The gdbserver bits also need to bring in all the recent changes to the tdep files. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer