Re: [COMMIT] Re: [PATCH] obvious (I think) correction to compiler.c and compiler.cc

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 10:56:50AM -0800, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> Done.
> 
> Was this obvious and I was too cautious?

Dunno.

> PS. should I have copied the patch here or is the reference enough?

Is fine.  Please just reply to the approval without changing the
subject, though.

> 
> 
> 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.
> 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC