From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23593 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2004 17:55:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23586 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2004 17:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Aug 2004 17:55:10 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.159.46]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id EDW25233; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:55:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:55:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <8011-Wed11Aug2004205209+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <411A53C6.3020906@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:13:42 -0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve i386 prologue analyzer Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200408012158.i71LwpRw033840@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3405-Mon02Aug2004070159+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <410EAFBB.5080102@gnu.org> <2914-Tue03Aug2004065313+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <200408061933.i76JX3HJ008032@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4113EA3B.3000900@gnu.org> <2914-Sat07Aug2004183455+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <41150161.3000306@gnu.org> <41155A83.nail9VC11PTRT@mindspring.com> <7704-Sun08Aug2004065437+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <4115FF44.nail59F11C8I0@mindspring.com> <200408081108.i78B8Cpk009362@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <411633BE.2010809@gnu.org> <7137-Sun08Aug2004223001+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <4116AEA1.7060900@gnu.org> <2914-Mon09Aug2004220629+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411961FC.4010007@gnu.org> <6654-Wed11Aug2004065005+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411A53C6.3020906@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:13:42 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > > > 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.