From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21488 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2003 18:28:07 -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 21481 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2003 18:28:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.131) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 18:28:07 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234242B8D; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F6F3F33.7060306@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton , Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: correctly place new inclusions in includer's list References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00477.txt.bz2 > On 22 Sep 2003 12:57:29 -0500, Jim Blandy said: > > >> I think this would be good to include on the 6.0 branch; would that >> be okay? > > > I've seen macrotab seg faults intermittently over the last few months; > I've been too lazy to track them down (they're hard to reproduce, and > I didn't know if it was something weird about my branch or a bug in > mainline), but if this patch might fix them, and if it's as trivial as > it seems, then putting it in 6.0 makes sense to me. Ok. Testcase on mainline? Andrew