From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4833 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2004 18:55:15 -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 4722 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2004 18:55:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Jul 2004 18:55:14 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id B70F847D91; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: cagney@gnu.org, ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de, kettenis@chello.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] MIPS_TEXT symbols should be associated to .text section? Message-ID: <20040730185513.GT1167@gnat.com> References: <20040721204604.GN1278@gnat.com> <20040729220156.GK1167@gnat.com> <20040729221904.GT965@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <200407292314.i6TNEqwV024526@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20040730003138.GU965@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <1438-Fri30Jul2004142656+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <410A4EF5.3080302@gnu.org> <5567-Fri30Jul2004210216+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040730181353.GR1167@gnat.com> <1190-Fri30Jul2004214217+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1190-Fri30Jul2004214217+0300-eliz@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00511.txt.bz2 > What's to prevent us from holding 6.2 until this bug is resolved? > What's the rush to put out a release with broken MIPS support? Andrew probably has reasons for not delaying the release, and I respect them. I would be pleased if we delayed 6.2 for IRIX. But the fact of the matter is that I discovered the fact while the first 6.2 tarball was being made, and I also don't know how long we would need to delay it before we could get IRIX back into a releasable shape. So I can't ask for the delay, especially since IRIX support in 6.0 and 6.1 was broken too. Part of the problem with the unknown delay is with the fact that one patch is out of our control (I am actively discussing with a BFD mantainer, so hopefully we'll have a resolution soon), and the other part of the problem is that the other 2 GDB patches apparently need more work (On one of them, Andrew thinks we need some reorganization to take place before my patch can go in, and on the other he wants the patch to be more complete). I personally think that we are letting the best be the enemy of good, as we could have a much better GDB right now with a couple of adjustements left for later, but it's not my decision. -- Joel