From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: GDB Patches , Christian Groessler Subject: Re: [patch/5.1] Doco z8k problem Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 14:21:00 -0000 Message-id: <3AA410B8.53089BF8@cygnus.com> References: <3AA3C84F.43AA9112@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00087.html Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Just FYI, > > I've checked in the attatched - the z8k is known to be broken. > If someone pings me after the opcode problem has been fixed, I'll have > another go at building it. > > Andrew 2001-03-05 Andrew Cagney * TODO (GDB 5.1 Known Problems): Document z8k as broken. Index: TODO =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/TODO,v retrieving revision 1.61 diff -p -r1.61 TODO *** TODO 2001/02/23 22:20:38 1.61 --- TODO 2001/03/05 17:07:32 *************** http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/2000 *** 240,245 **** --- 240,257 ---- -- + GDB 5.1 Known Problems + ====================== + + -- + + z8k + + The z8k has suffered bit rot and is known to not build. The problem + was occuring in the opcodes directory. + + -- + GDB 5.2 - Fixes =============== >From kevinb@cygnus.com Mon Mar 05 14:28:00 2001 From: Kevin Buettner To: Andrew Cagney , Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: ChangeLog fixes Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 14:28:00 -0000 Message-id: <1010305222742.ZM5518@ocotillo.lan> References: <200103050438.UAA17645@bosch.cygnus.com> <3AA3F7CF.B3A6B781@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00088.html Content-length: 1890 On Mar 5, 3:32pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > I look on this as rewriting history. > > Fixing, very recent ChangeLog entries to comply with current norms makes > sense. However, rewriting very old change logs that date back to a time > when current standards didn't apply or were applied far more loosely > looks like rewriting history. It does have that feel to it, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Normally, when we think about the rewriting of history it is often in the context of making someone or some group appear in a better or worse light. This is certainly wrong. OTOH, we all know that there are errors and inaccuracies in historical texts and I don't think that most of us feel outraged when someone makes an honest effort to correct these. For real historians, I would imagine that it's incredibly tricky to figure out whether such corrections are a rewriting of history in the pejorative sense or are truly accurate corrections. Our historical texts are the ChangeLog entries, and for these, we (or some of us anyway) have the luxury of being able to check the veracity of the ChangeLog entries by means of the CVS repositories. Now to specifics... The bulk of Michael's ChangeLog fixes concern the use of the ``*'' wildcard. He left the original author's comment the same; all he did was expand the ``*'' to list all of those files which were actually affected. As I understand it, he verified the accuracy of his rewrites by checking against CVS. I think Michael's changes are incredibly useful to have, not only for my script, but also for those of us who use the ChangeLog files for research. And it may prove to be especially useful to those who do not have access to the Red Hat's internal CVS respository. However, we may want to agree that future changes to old ChangeLog files be submitted to gdb-patches for discussion first... Kevin