From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: What is on the 5.1 branch; Was: [rfc] Re: read_register_bytes() bug; was my Regcache revamp
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 06:53:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B80A35B.3060504@cygnus.com>
References: <3B7EAF09.4010801@cygnus.com> <3B7ED838.70607@cygnus.com> <9743-Sun19Aug2001093055+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00243.html

> Frankly, for quite some time I'm confused by the RFC's and RFA's
> posted here.  Are they all meant to go to the branch as well as the
> trunk?  If so, is it wise to make such changes after cutting the
> release branch?

As far as I know most of the patches going past at the moment are not 
going onto the branch(1).  Hmm, quick check, I've attached a copy of the 
5.1 ChangeLog.

This current thread/patch, however is interesting, I was not thinking of 
it as something for the 5.1 branch, but, yes, it probably is.

> Perhaps in the future each patch could tell explicitly whether it is
> meant ffor the branch or not, to prevent confusion.

I've been using the prefix [.../5.1] for anything 5.1 related.

enjoy,  (I hope this helps)

	Andrew

Now to try to get http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/ == 
http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/ .

(1) For me it is stuff like overhalling the floating-point code; fixing 
some nasty true multi-arch initialization problems; more MI and LIBGDB 
cleanup; more multi-arch; ...