From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-14901-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24922 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2002 16:32:47 -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 24319 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 16:31:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 16:31:29 -0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 172E3W-0001MN-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:31:14 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:32:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: S390[x] configuration update
Message-ID: <20020429123114.A3501@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <je662cu5mo.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20020427192408.A6259@nevyn.them.org> <je1yd0u1ch.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20020427202525.A8877@nevyn.them.org> <jewuussly2.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20020427203648.A9559@nevyn.them.org> <3CCD7260.8050207@cygnus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3CCD7260.8050207@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01122.txt.bz2

On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 12:18:40PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 02:31:33AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >
> >>Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> >>
> >>|> The updated patch looks
> >>|> good to me; you can probably just commit it, since it fixes a build
> >>|> failure and is quite straightforward.
> >>
> >>Done.  What about the 5.2 branch?  Is it still possible to get this into
> >>the release?
> >
> >
> >Don't think so, since Andrew seems to have already rolled the release
> >tarball.
> 
> Yes, definitly closed.
> 
> I also suspect there is no benefit in pulling it into the 5.2 branch 
> once unfrozen.  The existing stuff ``works'' - as they say, if it ain't 
> broke don't fix it :-)

By ``works'' you mean doesn't build? :)  See above; 5.2 won't build on
S/390.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer