From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23725 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2002 23:28:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23597 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2002 23:28:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.114.26.18) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2002 23:28:07 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3BF3E60; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:28:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C630D85.2090601@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: "Martin M. Hunt" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] fix for utils.c bool problem References: <200202072133.NAA28346@cygnus.com> <20020207163944.A30605@nevyn.them.org> <3C62F941.90805@cygnus.com> <20020207171414.A5630@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 > but the ``I think'' highlights the problem :-( I don't think we should >> be working around problems in an un released BFD :-/ > > > I don't follow that. If we ever, ever built using a "system" bfd.h, > maybe. BFD is part of our source distribution, for all that it is > owned by a different group. "Released" doesn't mean anything. BFD and GDB share a common repository as this allows close co-operation. If it were possible, we'd be sharing a repository with GCC. These GDB vs BFD problems come up all the time (this one is just extra nasty :-). I think both GDB and BINUTILS should be getting together and fixing the problem. Obviously if this had come up after a branch had been cut, I'd likely be giving a very different story - HACK - fortunatly it didn't. > The names that would need to be changed are 'true' and 'false'. That's > a problem of fairly great magnitude. While the problem is going to cause much entropy in the code, it should also be 100% mechanical. Look at other changes that have gone through GDB they were far less mechanical but still successful. As they say, GDB can provide BINUTILS with the necessary technical knowledge :-^ enjoy, Andrew