From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve i386 prologue analyzer
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:55:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8011-Wed11Aug2004205209+0300-eliz@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <411A53C6.3020906@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:13:42 -0400)
> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:13:42 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >
> > We are talking about two weeks, not about months or something. Why is
> > it worthwhile to go through the pains of another version just so the
> > MIPS patch could be released a week or two earlier than if it were to
> > be part of the same version as the i386 prologue patch?
>
> Sorry, I don't follow. I would have thought that a little bit of pain
> (on our part) would be worth the satisfaction of seeing us deliver a
> better working GDB sooner.
It's not only pain on our part (which I don't think we should dismiss
so lightly, btw, but that's just me). It's also the pain of our users
who will need to install two versions within 4 weeks.
And I still don't understand what is the rush to release the MIPS
patch without waiting for another week or two and then releasing the
i386 patch as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-11 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-01 21:58 Mark Kettenis
2004-08-02 4:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-02 21:19 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-03 3:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-06 19:33 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-08-06 20:29 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-07 15:37 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-07 16:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-07 17:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-07 17:38 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-07 18:30 ` Joel Brobecker
2004-08-07 18:52 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-07 22:41 ` Michael Chastain
2004-08-08 3:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-08 10:24 ` Michael Chastain
2004-08-08 11:08 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-08-08 14:08 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-08 15:04 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-08-08 19:32 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-09 13:59 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-09 15:07 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-08-09 16:46 ` Michael Chastain
2004-08-09 19:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-11 0:02 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-11 3:53 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-11 17:13 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-11 17:55 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2004-08-12 12:43 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-12 19:00 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-12 21:41 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-08-08 19:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-08 19:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-08-07 15:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-18 9:42 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-08-18 17:17 ` Mark Kettenis
2003-08-17 23:34 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-08-17 23:16 Mark Kettenis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8011-Wed11Aug2004205209+0300-eliz@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=cagney@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox