From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15130 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2011 19:52:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 15119 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2011 19:52:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:52:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0DJqKYc016508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:52:20 -0500 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0DJqIKv027613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:52:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4D2F57F1.2060000@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:06:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 7.2.1 release status? References: <20110113160428.GT4302@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110113160428.GT4302@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 On 01/13/2011 08:04 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > [RFA] c++/11734 revisited > > (or is it: `[RFA] c++/12273'). Last time this was brought up (in December), 11734 was the critical one, but 12273 might rear its ugly head if it is left out. It's a pretty innocuous patch (or is regression-free, at least). > Do we know whether we expect to see them fixed soon? Those are both pending review since 14-12-2010. Keith