From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15155 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2012 16:53:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 15089 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2012 16:53:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:53:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7OGr6qZ023826 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:53:06 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-37.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.37]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7OGr11O017438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:53:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:53:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [3/3] RFC - optional patch to restore DW_AT_data_member_location Message-ID: <20120824165249.GA11867@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87628cfbg2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00745.txt.bz2 On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:12:08 +0200, Doug Evans wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > > I consider this patch optional, because I think it is too much > > complicated code in support of a marginal and obsolete feature. > > However, I wrote it in case someone thinks that supporting 4 year old > > versions of gfortran is important. > > I'm all for holding off until someone presents a *compelling* use case. The use case is that if not upstreamed I will have to continue carrying on the patch up to date with HEAD for many further years for compatibility with gfortran-4.1 in RHEL-5.y. Sure it may not be compelling for FSF GDB, I am fine with that. FYI older GCCs are still actively in use, even if not actively then just due to existing built binaries/libraries. Thanks, Jan