From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15602 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 19:52:42 -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 15586 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 19:52:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 19:52:41 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F35A2B8F; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:52:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400C3586.1060104@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:52:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Adam Fedor , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix some 64-bit Objective-C bugs References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00525.txt.bz2 > 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