From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23980 invoked by alias); 10 May 2012 18:18:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 23963 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2012 18:18:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,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, 10 May 2012 18:18:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4AII539025260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 10 May 2012 14:18:06 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4AII49u028693; Thu, 10 May 2012 14:18:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4FAC065C.4030901@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 18:18:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stan Shebs CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: 'info os' additions again References: <4FA9A2FA.3090307@earthlink.net> <83k40m0xqt.fsf@gnu.org> <4FAADEBE.7010908@earthlink.net> <83pqaczk9u.fsf@gnu.org> <4FABB2DC.6030905@redhat.com> <4FAC051C.1090208@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <4FAC051C.1090208@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00374.txt.bz2 On 05/10/2012 07:12 PM, Stan Shebs wrote: > > They're waiting for the GDB bits (including the MI patch which is in my queue) to become available, which is why I want to get this resolved one way or another. It's a little ironic that Eclipse folks, who don't care about command-line syntax, are being blocked on a discussion of command-line syntax. :-) > > If everybody is tired of the issue, I'll just make a decision; things can always be changed later. What kind of decision? What would exactly be the alternative? -- Pedro Alves