From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6421 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2004 20:07:41 -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 6277 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2004 20:07:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.42.65.225) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Oct 2004 20:07:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A589129D8C; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:07:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <418545F4.8060401@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:07:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [COMMIT] OpenBSD/mips64 target and native support References: <200410231216.i9NCG6YK023827@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <417D1A69.2070904@gnu.org> <20041025152912.GA28110@nevyn.them.org> <417D4D56.80003@gnu.org> <4185314C.7020307@gnu.org> <200410311945.i9VJjMoG002666@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200410311945.i9VJjMoG002666@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00553.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:39:08 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > >>> This part: > >>> > >>> > >>>> +DEPRECATED_TM_FILE= tm-nbsd.h > >>> > >>> > >>> is no longer acceptable. > > The situtation we have here is identical to that we encountered when we > first made it a requirement that not just new architectures, but also > extensions to exsting architectures, had to be multi-arch. We set the > standard and then helped developers exceed it. > > Our only mistake was to "blink" when it came to the solib problem. > We've been "blinking" for too many years now. > > So should I just commit the attached to get things moving? If it was committed after 2004-09-13, sure. Oh, it wasn't. > IMHO, getting the solib h thingy fixed simply isn't top priority. > There are more important issues in GDB that deserve my attention. > Scaring away contributors by making unreasonable demands isn't a > sensible thing to do. Our situtation here is identical to what we encountered with basic multi-arch, the frame code, the regcace code, the function call code. There, with our help and co-operation, people not just stepped up to, but also exceeded the challenge. Andrew