From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1255 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2011 16:28:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 1158 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2011 16:28:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:28:02 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RPzO5-000616-3t from pedro_alves@mentor.com ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:28:01 -0800 Received: from scottsdale.localnet ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:27:58 +0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH] 32 bit-ism in lm32-tdep.c (and some sloppy macros) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:28:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-12-generic; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Werner Almesberger , Jon Beniston References: <20111111233808.GA10815@ws> <201111141612.17372.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201111141627.57802.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 On Monday 14 November 2011 16:20:36, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> On Monday 14 November 2011 15:48:48, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> I was a little surprised to find out we already use int16_t in gdb. > > Pedro> We pull stdint.h from gnulib. > > I was meaning to ask ... do we have a gnulib update policy? I don't think we do. I think we've updated about twice only since adding gnulib, and it was because there was something new in gnulib that we needed. I've done it once. > I wanted to pull in stdbool.h and start using bool in gdb; plus maybe > some other bits so we can use O_CLOEXEC and friends (but only maybe -- > it isn't clear to me that gnulib is the best way to tackle this > problem). Anyway, then I noticed that the existing files are not > up-to-date against gnulib git. > > It seemed to me that updating now, just before a release, was maybe not > the best time. Any thoughts? Agreed. After release sounds best. Do you know if gnulib follows any sort of stable release/period in their trunk? That is, is there any time that is better for pulling current gnulib state that is better or worse then others, in terms of pulling in gnulib bugs or works-in-progress? -- Pedro Alves