From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14124 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2004 15:20:57 -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 13813 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2004 15:20:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr) (193.140.236.6) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Jul 2004 15:20:55 -0000 Received: from ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr (ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr [127.0.0.1]) by ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr (8.12.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6QFKrno017565 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:20:53 +0300 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i6QFKqcD017564 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:20:52 +0300 Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:20:00 -0000 From: Baurjan Ismagulov To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: ping: Re: handling of absolute source file paths Message-ID: <20040726152050.GA14429@ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040420154855.GD9020@ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr> <20040501171420.GB21679@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <9743-Sat01May2004211140+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040508212208.GA1019@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <6137-Tue11May2004190737+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040717182228.GA24895@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <20040723195820.GA3151@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <3405-Sat24Jul2004101857+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <41051BD4.3000308@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41051BD4.3000308@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 Hello Andrew, On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:57:24AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>>> Could anyone please apply that? > >>>Eli? > >I asked Andrew for a go-ahead (several days ago, when you first posted > >the patch), and am waiting for him to reply. > > I did (last wednesday :-): Hmm, I don't see the changes in, e.g., source.c 1.53. Are we talking about the same patch? > > For now, just to mainline, think about 6.2 branch after 6.2 is out. What is the reason for that (just to understand how such matters are handled)? With kind regards, Baurjan.