From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1993 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2012 23:29:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 1985 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2012 23:29:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:28:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72BDC1C61F4 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:28:52 -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 CVLeTU25DVTZ for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 400C01C61F1 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:28:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 68220145615; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:29:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: merge std-operator.def and ada-operator.def? Message-ID: <20120316232840.GU2853@adacore.com> References: <1331940061-10739-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1331940061-10739-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00645.txt.bz2 > This is something I noticed while investigating something else: [...] > The patch series was tested on x86_64-linux, no regression. I wish I had sent patches in a different order... I should mention that this patch series won't apply unless this other patch is applied: http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-03/msg00644.html It would be easy to fix, but I don't think ordering is going to be an issue... -- Joel