From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: kettenis@chello.nl, mec.gnu@mindspring.com,
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve i386 prologue analyzer
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2914-Mon09Aug2004220629+0300-eliz@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4116AEA1.7060900@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:52:17 -0400)
> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 18:52:17 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>
> week 1.5: 6.2.1:
> Critical MIPS problem fixed.
> Fix for long-standing i386 bug known (needs 2 weeks testing)
>
> week 4.0: 6.2.2:
> Long standing bug on old i386 systems fixed.
>
> Does this seem reasonable.
No.
Sorry, you didn't answer my question, so I'll try to explain what bugs
me: it's the logic behind these decisions that I cannot grasp.
That is, if fixing MIPS is so important, then why did we release GDB
6.2 without waiting for the fix? And if it wasn't important enough
for 6.2 to wait for it, why can't it wait for a couple of weeks and be
released in 6.2.1 together with the i386 prologue analyzer fix?
I need to understand how to reconcile these two contradicting moves in
order to judge whether I can live with the decision, whatever it is.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-09 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-01 21:58 Mark Kettenis
2004-08-02 4:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-02 21:19 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-03 3:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-06 19:33 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-08-06 20:29 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-07 15:37 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-07 16:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-07 17:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-07 17:38 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-07 18:30 ` Joel Brobecker
2004-08-07 18:52 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-07 22:41 ` Michael Chastain
2004-08-08 3:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-08 10:24 ` Michael Chastain
2004-08-08 11:08 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-08-08 14:08 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-08 15:04 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-08-08 19:32 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-09 13:59 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-09 15:07 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-08-09 16:46 ` Michael Chastain
2004-08-09 19:09 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2004-08-11 0:02 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-11 3:53 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-11 17:13 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-11 17:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-12 12:43 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-12 19:00 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-12 21:41 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-08 19:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-08 19:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-07 15:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-18 9:42 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-08-18 17:17 ` Mark Kettenis
2003-08-17 23:34 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-08-17 23:16 Mark Kettenis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2914-Mon09Aug2004220629+0300-eliz@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
--cc=mec.gnu@mindspring.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox