From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-42326-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26169 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2006 23:10:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 26161 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jan 2006 23:10:49 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:10:47 +0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) 	id 1F05P1-0005a8-Fs; Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:10:43 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:10:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: PATCH: Remove rdi-share
Message-ID: <20060120231043.GC21181@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>, 	Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <200601162234.k0GMYHk7009713@sethra.codesourcery.com> <8f2776cb0601162147v597ba8d3ke75006a8ec11224d@mail.gmail.com> <43CDB4EF.1040407@codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43CDB4EF.1040407@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:24:31PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Jim Blandy wrote:
> > On 1/16/06, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>As I understand it, consensus has been reached that rdi-share should
> >>go away.  In addition to removing cruft, this also makes it possible
> >>to build an ARM GDB for MinGW; the rdi-share bits did not compile on
> >>Windows.  I've tested this patch by building an arm-eabi GDB for both
> >>x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and i686-mingw32 hosts.
> > 
> > Should there be a NEWS entry for this?
> 
> I'm not sure what the criteria is -- but, in my local NEWS file, I now have:
> 
> * REMOVED features
> 
> The ARM rdi-share module.
> 
> OK with that addition?

Yes, this is OK.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery