From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-21990-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 29809 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2003 22:15:07 -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 29764 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2003 22:15:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2003 22:15:06 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NLkAf13418;
	Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:46:10 -0500
Received: from post-office.corp.redhat.com (post-office.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.227])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NMF6a07991;
	Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:15:06 -0500
Received: from greed.delorie.com (dj.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.222])
	by post-office.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0NMF5K09580;
	Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:15:05 -0500
Received: (from dj@localhost)
	by greed.delorie.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0NMF4n17674;
	Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:15:04 -0500
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:15:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200301232215.h0NMF4n17674@greed.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
To: neroden@twcny.rr.com
CC: aoliva@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com,
   binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
   rda@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20030123220924.GA13984@doctormoo> (message from Nathanael Nerode
	on Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:09:24 -0500)
Subject: Re: (committed toplevel patch) Make rda native-only
References:  <20030123220924.GA13984@doctormoo>
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00705.txt.bz2


> Or I could invoke patch reversion and demand that RDA *not* be built
> from the top level, at least in GCC's version of the top level.
> That also sounds entirely reasonable to me.

That sounds quite drastic to me.  If RDA doesn't build for you, take
it out of your local sources so it won't be built.  As for patch
reversion rules, the patch to add rda to gcc's configury did not break
anything in the gcc build, so there's no cause to revert it.