From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32313 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2008 17:53:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 32255 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2008 17:53:33 -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; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:52:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1E32A9654; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:52:54 -0500 (EST) 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 eMPb05r8C2Tj; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B112A963C; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6E839E7ACD; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:52:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: Tristan Gingold , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Darwin port (Part 0) Message-ID: <20081110175252.GE5112@adacore.com> References: <49187306.6090201@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49187306.6090201@earthlink.net> 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 > There is no copyright obstacle that I know of - Apple made a blanket > assignment to the FSF for all future GDB changes. I'm still a bit concerned, primarily because I'm not a lawyer. But does having a blanket assignment for all past and future changes mean that any GDB code they write and put on their website is automatically assigned to the FSF? I would have been less concerned if they did a code drop for instance. In terms of the patches themselves, I asked Tristan to remove support for watchpoints because they are implemented the "old" way, with macros defined in the NM file. I'd like to see them being implemented through the gdbarch vector, but this can be done as a separate patch. I haven't looked at the rest of the code yet, but that was one thing that came up during our discussion on the phone this morning. -- Joel