From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3882 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2008 15:43:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 3861 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2008 15:43:50 -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; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:43:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474721F0204; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:43:11 -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 ALpn8ahv-wNU; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:43:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9101F01FD; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:43:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AF8A0E7ACD; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:43:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:40:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: Tristan Gingold , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Darwin/x86 port (v2 - part 0) Message-ID: <20081114154308.GG12802@adacore.com> References: <3A152A70-4355-440D-839F-A4EAC36C530B@adacore.com> <200811131452.mADEq21U018058@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <406742BB-4F37-406B-B4E3-75C8DD2DBD03@adacore.com> <491C6C09.4050300@codesourcery.com> <2C387CFB-1541-41B5-964C-68692E078BFA@adacore.com> <491D93D8.6060007@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <491D93D8.6060007@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00344.txt.bz2 (trying to take my AdaCore hat off) > My natural inclination is to accept the code into the trunk after review > - I suspect that the next round of changes will be more invasive into > the rest of GDB, and it would be easier to consider each of those > separately from the basic port. But, I have a track record of being too > optimistic on this strategy, ahem. :-) What do other people think? I think that's a good approach. In this case, it is even more attractive as the changes have remained uninvasive so far, so it would be easy to undo them all if we decided to do so. All in all, I think we have a lot to gain, and little to lose. -- Joel