From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63877 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2018 04:27:57 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 63824 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2018 04:27:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=occasion X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 04:27:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017F1117767; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:27:49 -0500 (EST) 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 Q1qzawtAXw1t; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:27:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C5411775E; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:27:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5F9A68330B; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 08:27:44 +0400 (+04) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 04:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Compilation warning in simple-object-xcoff.c Message-ID: <20180122042744.c55gq3mh7hkp5msi@adacore.com> References: <833733x2zj.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2qksnm2.fsf@gnu.org> <834lnfrzae.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <834lnfrzae.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00437.txt.bz2 > > I committed the patch. > > So now that this patch is committed to upstream libiberty, is it OK to > push it to GDB's copy of the library? Yes. For libiberty, incorporating patches from upstream is considered an "obvious" change in the sense that it does not require prior approval. We should actually always keep the two in sync, but as we know, they easily forget, hence the occasion "resync" patches... -- Joel