From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-13878-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 14343 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 04:48:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 14336 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 04:48:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 04:48:18 -0000
Received: (from mec@localhost)
	by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g344m9L27264;
	Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:48:09 -0600
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 20:48:00 -0000
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Message-Id: <200204040448.g344m9L27264@duracef.shout.net>
To: ac131313@cygnus.com, drow@mvista.com, eliz@is.elta.co.il
Subject: Re: [RFA] import drow dbxread.c fix to branch
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2

Welcome back, Andrew!

Andrew Cagney writes:
> Fortunatly (for JimB), DanielJ found a fix for the problem and that has 
> slowly been working its way into the branch.

Here is the current status from my perspective:

. DanielJ's fix is great for PR gdb/379 and PR gdb/380.  It has been in
  mainline for a couple of test cycles with no regressions.  It's one of the
  steps DanielJ took to reach his fabulous "NO FAIL" tree.

. I grabbed the patch and tested it on the 5.2 branch.  It tests great
  over there.

. I'm waiting for approval to commit to the branch.  Then I can spin more
  test results and produce another detailed "5.1.1 versus gdb_5_2-branch"
  report.

. This fix does not fix PR gdb/381.  gdb/381 is still happening in mainline.
  I'm secretly hoping that DanielJ will take an interest in it.

. I am ambivalent about whether gdb/381 is a showstopper.  On one hand:
  any regression is bad and should be nailed down before a release.
  On the other hand: gdb/381 happens only in gcc-3_1-branch and
  gcc HEAD, which are not released.  "Ambivalence" also translates to:
  I'll be comfortable with whatever Andrew decides.

Michael C