From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24659 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2012 15:04:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24647 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Sep 2012 15:04:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:04:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BC31C737A; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 11:04:43 -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 qDKTbff+w6Jn; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 11:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA9E1C700E; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 11:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 17ABF14561A; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 11:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:04:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Doug Evans , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [3/3] RFC - optional patch to restore DW_AT_data_member_location Message-ID: <20120902150440.GA24162@adacore.com> References: <87628cfbg2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120824165249.GA11867@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120824165249.GA11867@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > 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. Personally, I think it is potentially helpful to have it in the FSF tree unless it causes problems. I can certainly see someone upgrading their GDB from source, while still using the compiler provided by the system. -- Joel