From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27404 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2004 19:59:13 -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 24897 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2004 19:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Jul 2004 19:58:21 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6UJwLe3022658 for ; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:58:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6UJwJa17946; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:58:19 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4022B9D; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <410AA856.7080702@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:59:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Eli Zaretskii , ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de, kettenis@chello.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] MIPS_TEXT symbols should be associated to .text section? References: <20040721204604.GN1278@gnat.com> <20040729220156.GK1167@gnat.com> <20040729221904.GT965@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <200407292314.i6TNEqwV024526@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20040730003138.GU965@rembrandt.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> <1438-Fri30Jul2004142656+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <410A4EF5.3080302@gnu.org> <5567-Fri30Jul2004210216+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040730181353.GR1167@gnat.com> <1190-Fri30Jul2004214217+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040730185513.GT1167@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040730185513.GT1167@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 [The following isn't quite what joel wrote] > We would all be pleased if we delayed 6.2 for IRIX. But the fact of the > matter is that we only discovered the problem while the first 6.2 tarball > was being made, and we also don't know how long we would need to delay it > before we could get IRIX back into a releasable shape. So we can't ask > for the delay, especially since IRIX support in 6.0 and 6.1 was broken > too. Right. We'll get the MIPS back on track with either 6.2.1 in a few weeks, or 6.3 in a few months. Andrew