From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5499 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2005 19:00:41 -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 5452 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2005 19:00:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e33.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.131) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2005 19:00:36 -0000 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j27J0ZTE170082 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:00:35 -0500 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j27J0ZL1143042 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:00:35 -0700 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j27J0YNM031703 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:00:34 -0700 Received: from dyn319633.beaverton.ibm.com (DYN319633.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.22.123]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j27J0YWt031687; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:00:34 -0700 From: Paul Gilliam Reply-To: pgilliam@us.ibm.com To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: [COMMIT] Re: [PATCH] obvious (I think) correction to compiler.c and compiler.cc Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz References: <200503071039.16604.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <20050307185048.GA15838@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20050307185048.GA15838@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200503071056.50420.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 Done. Was this obvious and I was too cautious? -=# Paul #=- PS. should I have copied the patch here or is the reference enough? On Monday 07 March 2005 10:50, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0800, Paul Gilliam wrote: > > This fixes a problem with this committed patch: > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-03/msg00050.htm > > > > 'compiler.c' and 'compiler.cc' where doing the right thing, but > > get_compiler_info was not evaluating the key line because it did not > > begin with 'set'. Rather then add another case to get_compiler_info, I > > changed the the line in compiler.c and compiler.cc to be 'set need_a_set > > [regsub....]' > > > > At first I thought this was obvious, but because it could be fixed in > > compiler.c and compiler.cc or fixed in get_compiler_info, I thought maybe > > it wasn't so obvious. I fixed it here in compiler.c and compiler.cc > > because those are compiler dependent and get_compiler_info is more > > generic. > > > > OK to commit? > > OK.