From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8738 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2007 20:58:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 8694 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -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, 24 Oct 2007 20:58:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCE02AAB60; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:58:35 -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 UCPkWA06Yi0m; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B952AAA5A; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7DB2EE7AC8; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:58:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Backtrace prints wrong argument value Message-ID: <20071024205833.GP764@adacore.com> References: <20070917133700.GA14300@caradoc.them.org> <1190037624.4651.24.camel@localhost> <20070917140416.GA15635@caradoc.them.org> <1190049306.4651.42.camel@localhost> <20070917171821.GA2107@caradoc.them.org> <1192997096.5584.2.camel@localhost> <20071021232837.GD6180@adacore.com> <20071022010550.GA12211@caradoc.them.org> <20071022033114.GB764@adacore.com> <20071024204654.GP10943@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071024204654.GP10943@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: 2007-10/txt/msg00628.txt.bz2 > With Pedro's help, two are now fixed. Only build/2339 remains. But > that's with SunPro and I don't think it's a blocker - so we are > probably good to go now. OK, I'd like to also include the piece of NEWS for hppa64-hpux (which I'm about to submit). Shall we target Friday or early next week? -- Joel