From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 654 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2007 18:44:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 644 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2007 18:44:54 -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, 03 Oct 2007 18:44:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF52C2AB186; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:42:00 -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 R1VOTzNd2kvx; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3D22AB187; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 80256E7B58; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: 'Pedro Alves' , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Stabs parsing regression from GDB 6.6 to GDB 6.6.90 Message-ID: <20071003184156.GC4305@adacore.com> References: <000601c7fc25$98110430$c8330c90$@u-strasbg.fr> <46F486B4.6050900@portugalmail.pt> <46F56F04.6070601@portugalmail.pt> <46F707C3.1090105@portugalmail.pt> <006101c7fe8b$70d5af70$52810e50$@u-strasbg.fr> <4053daab0709240321n40d7e3e0vc0f7d5567e990785@mail.gmail.com> <006701c7feae$fbb75850$f32608f0$@u-strasbg.fr> <46F8C1C8.7080608@portugalmail.pt> <46F9A061.2020909@portugalmail.pt> <001b01c805b5$ce7f0730$6b7d1590$@u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001b01c805b5$ce7f0730$6b7d1590$@u-strasbg.fr> 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 > I definitively think that this patch should go both into > head and branch, but it needs approval from someone else... Unless someone like Elena who knows this code very well says it's safe, I would prefer if the patch didn't get applied to the branch. I'm a bit concerned about it given the few iterations that you both had to go through in order to get it to that point. It just shows that it is not obvious. -- Joel