Re: [PATCH] Fix some 64-bit Objective-C bugs

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>>Yes, better safe than sorry.  Ulrich, can IBM do the paperwork for all
>>the stuff that's approved (this would leave just frame cleanup).
> 
> 
> OK, I've respun the s390 backend patches to adapt them to the latest
> changes and also to fix everything reported by ARI (-Wari only, not -Wall).
> I'll post the latest version shortly.

Thanks.

> I'll then immediately start the legal process for
>   - the main backend patches (part 1 .. 4)
>   - the bi-arch patch
>   - the ObjC patch
> 
> (The Java patch was incorrect, and the DWARF-2 patch still awaits some
> common code changes.)
> 
> I hope we can get this through in time for gdb 6.1 ...
> 
> What's the policy for the branch?  In case the paperwork is still not
> ready at the time the branch is created, can we still get the patches
> in afterwards (after all, the contents are already approved ...)?

Things are a lot more flexible than GCC.  In the past we've ended up 
with s390 specific patches being committed to the branch.  Also I've 
seen your assignment lawyers in action - they move much faster than you 
might think.

Main thing is to try and get the changes you depend on sorted out before 
the branch.

Andrew