From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28472 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2007 11:48:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 28464 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2007 11:48:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:48:25 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73959833F for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:48:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF6B981F2 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:48:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Ikeik-00050M-DZ for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 07:48:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [0/8] solib handler rework Message-ID: <20071024114822.GB18617@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20071022180819.GF764@adacore.com> <200710222025.l9MKPCNT026151@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <20071024060548.GK764@adacore.com> <20071024063810.GL764@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071024063810.GL764@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00571.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:38:10PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I'm going to try to build GDB on 11.11 and see if I get better > > results. First, I need to find a compiler... > > No luck there either... > > I propose that we just accept the changes in solib-pa64 since they compile. > The pa64-hpux debugger is pretty broken, so we can't verify them any > further. We should probably document that fact somewhere, maybe in > the NEWS file? Poor outdated PROBLEMS, I suppose. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery