From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25645 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2003 20:40:56 -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 25633 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2003 20:40:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO elmo.streamline) (212.103.239.121) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Sep 2003 20:40:55 -0000 Received: from elmo.streamline (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elmo.streamline (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8FKefLV012319 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:40:41 +0100 Received: (from david@localhost) by elmo.streamline (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h8FKef8b012317 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:40:41 +0100 Resent-Message-Id: <200309152040.h8FKef8b012317@elmo.streamline> X-Authentication-Warning: elmo.streamline: david set sender to david@streamline-computing.com using -f Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:40:00 -0000 From: David Lecomber To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Large array printing patch for Fortran Message-ID: <20030915195058.GA12113@streamline-computing.com> References: <20030910143536.GA23943@streamline-computing.com> <20030915155834.GA8599@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030915155834.GA8599@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Resent-From: david@streamline-computing.com Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:40:41 +0100 Resent-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00338.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:58:35AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >Yes, I know that this patch hasn't been reviewed. That's a shame. Nag >the list if you get impatient, but please stop checking things in to >CVS! You're listed as a "Write After Approval" maintainer. If you >can't wait for approval I'll ask to have you removed from that list. > >This was on my list to look at this week, when we were sure 6.0 was in >the hole. Hi Daniel, You reviewed this one May 16th -- I made the typographical corrections you asked for. It could be that gdb-6.0 doesn't suffer from the bug and the fix would be unnecessary (but nonetheless harmless) now. If it doesn't work, please roll it back. I asked another gdb maintainer if I'd got the hang of what the procedures were - after my naughty commit last week ;-) - and he confirmed I now understood it. On not getting a response from the list, I took that to mean it's okay. Well, actually he said 'wait for responses'; I timed-out after 5 days. My mistake, mea culpa, but I wasn't given any indication that a reply would occur! I do have a more complicated fix to post, one that you weren't convinced about in May, and I'm getting the first one out of the way before even attempting to explain the new one. Cheers David