From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B4D43858D34 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2020 07:30:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6B4D43858D34 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eliz@gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49285) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jrG9i-0007vC-G0; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 03:30:42 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3703 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jrG9h-0005D2-Vb; Fri, 03 Jul 2020 03:30:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 10:30:40 +0300 Message-Id: <837dvlvyvz.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Simon Marchi Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tom@tromey.com In-Reply-To: <0b1b1404-d383-42de-1e7a-fca1a6df0a2d@simark.ca> (message from Simon Marchi on Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:35:11 -0400) Subject: Re: GDB 10 branching - 2020-06-27 Update References: <20200627154005.GA5618@adacore.com> <0b1b1404-d383-42de-1e7a-fca1a6df0a2d@simark.ca> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2020 07:30:45 -0000 > From: Simon Marchi > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 20:35:11 -0400 > Cc: Tom Tromey > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-June/169936.html > > It's been a quite long-running issue: > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21104 > > and it's nice to finally have someone address it. It would be a shame > I think if it didn't make it into this release. I agree. > I have looked at the patches, but I know nothing about this, so I can't > review them properly. Do you know who would be most qualified to review > this? I thought Doug would chime in, but he didn't.