From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23752 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2007 19:17:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 23602 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2007 19:17:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:17:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98AB2AA14B; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id D-flv37W-gip; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818112AA2B4; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 13F28E7B54; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jerome Guitton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] backtrace in mixed language application Message-ID: <20070815192055.GL11498@adacore.com> References: <20070810101003.GA33739@adacore.com> <20070815190110.GI11498@adacore.com> <20070815190136.GA32546@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070815190136.GA32546@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00318.txt.bz2 > > That reminds me that we're trying to move to GPLv3, and your patch > > actually refers to GPLv2. I think it's fine for this patch, we'll > > fix it later with the rest of the files when we manage to do the > > transition. But do give this a few days for people to object before > > you commit. > > It's easy enough to fix up files afterwards. We don't need to worry > about it. > > We do, however, need to get going. I agree. I'm trying to keep this in today's schedule, hopefully tomorrow at the latest. BTW, Jerome: Let's wait until your corresponding change is finalized and checked in. I don't think there is any point in introducing a testcase that we know will fail. -- Joel