From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25149 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2016 10:50:01 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 25127 invoked by uid 89); 9 Feb 2016 10:50:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1134, morning X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:50:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01E9A8E220; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 10:49:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u19Anvhl010667; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 05:49:58 -0500 Message-ID: <56B9C455.7040803@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:50:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tedeschi, Walfred" CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [obv. PATCH 1/1] Fix build breakage References: <1455013458-14340-1-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <56B9BFF3.7020905@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 On 02/09/2016 10:37 AM, Tedeschi, Walfred wrote: > From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Alves > How is this better than what Simon proposed? > I haven't seem Simon's proposal, have just feel sorry to have caused this breakage, and tried to fix. > Just noticed that with the e-mail from Sergio this early morning. Simon's fix was quoted in Sergio's e-mail. :-) > I will revert what I just pushed, You reverted one patch unrelated patch too: commit 0635c8759326e9431604b3359185cbf96740521d Author: Walfred Tedeschi Revert "Add a more helpful warning message to explain why some AArch64 relocations can overflow." This reverts commit 2ea53e003163338a403d5afbb2046cafb8f3abe9. I've reapplied 2ea53e003163 now, preserving the original author (for "git blame"). BTW, given you first fixed the C++ build, and then broke it again with the revert, you should have gotten another e-mail from the buildbot about C++ build breakage. Can you confirm whether you got one this time? Thanks, Pedro Alves