From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6214 invoked by alias); 21 May 2009 17:35:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 6205 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2009 17:35:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-48-46-134.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.48.46.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 May 2009 17:35:30 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3C113C023; Thu, 21 May 2009 13:35:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 68F156C04F0; Thu, 21 May 2009 13:35:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:35:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Hui Zhu , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [Prec/RFA] fix build error of prec in cygwin Message-ID: <20090521173520.GA27926@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Hui Zhu , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves References: <20090521152621.GA27524@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <200905211634.55480.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200905211634.55480.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00465.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 04:34:55PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >On Thursday 21 May 2009 16:26:21, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I was not implying that your changes didn't fix compiler errors. ?I >>was saying that I didn't think they were the correct way to fix the >>errors. However, since I am apparently the only person who cares about >>this stuff, and it doesn't seem like my point is getting across, I >>think I'll just shut up now. ?Other, global maintainers have said that >>they were ok with your changes so I'm not going to object even if they >>don't make sense to me. > >If you're thinking of me, I don't remember saying this was OK. I'd >like to have this fixed properly. Sorry, I didn't really have anyone in mind. I thought a few people had indicated they were ok with the patch. cgf