From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12618 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 01:36:23 -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 12610 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 01:36:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (66.187.233.200) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 01:36:22 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (vpn50-3.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.3]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g3Q1aId16899; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:36:18 -0400 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id AB05D1B965; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:36:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Cc: Andrew Cagney , "David S. Miller" , shebs@apple.com Subject: Re: which patches to review Message-ID: <20020426013611.GA30067@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney , "David S. Miller" , shebs@apple.com References: <20020423.220943.39181580.davem@redhat.com> <3CC6D4E2.E5858735@apple.com> <3CC6E84D.2090403@cygnus.com> <20020424.103856.00478620.davem@redhat.com> <3CC8137D.6050809@cygnus.com> <20020425211324.A6519@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020425211324.A6519@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01059.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:13:24PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:32:29AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: >> > From: Andrew Cagney >> >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:15:57 -0400 >> > >> > Here, you're mistaken. >> > >> >He isn't %100 wrong. I've been asked repeatedly to basically >> >multi-arch the Sparc targets out the wazoo to get the Linux >> >Sparc bits in. >> >> One of GDB's overriding objectives it to get everything multi-arch. To >> that end: >> >> Post 5.0, every new architecture has to be mult-arched >> Post 5.1, every addition to an existing architecture has to be mult-arch >> enabled >> >> As acceptence criteria, they are simple and transparent. I don't think >> me stiching up some sort of cosy deal where you were some how excempted >> from this would go down very well :-) > >Again with due respect, I've got to object to the point of view in this >message. I wouldn't say that becoming multi-arch is "one of GDB's >overriding objectives". It's something that we all agree would be good >for GDB; it's something that I agree with you should happen before our >next release, which is not scheduled for at least four months IIRC. >But if it is an "overriding objective", it's only so for you. My >overriding objective is for GDB to improve. Hmm. I was under the impression that 1) Andrew was the head maintainer for gdb and, so, got to specify little things like "overriding directions" for gdb, and 2) multiarching targets was an improvement. cgf