From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: drow@mvista.com Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, jason-swarelist@molenda.com, dan@cgsoftware.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] bug in symtab.c:lookup_block_symbol()'s search method Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:51:00 -0000 Message-id: <6480-Tue18Sep2001144611+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <7370175E-AA1B-11D5-94ED-0030657B5340@cgsoftware.com> <20010915140234.A17079@shell17.ba.best.com> <200109160715.JAA07114@is.elta.co.il> <3BA6E214.9020700@cygnus.com> <20010918021538.A20080@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00222.html > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 02:15:38 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > The suggested criteria for committing something to the 5.1 branch are: > > > > o does it build (and if not did it build in 5.0/4.18) > > > > o does ``break main; run'' work > > > > Jason, you've indicate that this seriously hurts Apple's GDB branch. > > Since (FSF) GDB has never worked on MacOS X, I don't think hurting > > Apple's GDB branch is really qualifies as a reason for getting something > > into 5.1 of GDB (The trunk yes definitly, just not the branch). > > These two paragraphs seem to be in direct opposition. Which do you > mean? It helps performance on more than just OSX; it's an issue I've > run in to more than a few times before. It doesn't break "break main; > run". I think Andrew meant to say that if a GDB port for some platform is broken to the degree that it either doesn't build or cannot do a ``break main; run'', then it is justified to fix that platform on the release branch.