From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23466 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2012 16:00:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 23446 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jun 2012 16:00:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_STOCKTIP,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:00:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0201C69BD; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:00:12 -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 H+fxgHufymeM; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467EF1C6931; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 88DE3145616; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:00:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Branching time + 1 week (was: "Re: Three weeks to branching (gdb 7.5 release)") Message-ID: <20120611160002.GK2687@adacore.com> References: <20120511181737.GP29339@adacore.com> <20120611153435.GH2687@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00293.txt.bz2 > I've got a few days left on each item. OK, thanks for the status update, Doug. I think we have to wait for Jan's changes as well anyway. > I haven't been able to test the psymtab symbol list reorg with > xcoffread.c or mdebugread.c. > IMO the patch can go in (the changes are similar to the changes to > stabsread.c, and if we can't test those targets they shouldn't hold > back progress on others), but what do others think? I should be able to give them some minimal testing, but I definitely agree with that principle. -- Joel