From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-72735-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5066 invoked by alias); 3 May 2010 03:09:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 5058 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2010 03:09:46 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0	tests=BAYES_40,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 May 2010 03:09:41 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L1T00F00PWJQN00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 03 May 2010 06:09:01 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.59.39]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L1T00DNYQ30WP50@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 03 May 2010 06:09:01 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 03:09:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: gdb/PROBLEMS ?
In-reply-to: <4BDE28F9.5040005@codesourcery.com>
To: Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com>
Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83pr1dvfzi.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <201005021726.19409.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4BDE28F9.5040005@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 18:38:01 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> Pedro Alves wrote:
> > I looked over the described problems in gdb/PROBLEMS, and, it looks
> > to me that all of them fall in one of two categories: either
> > they've been fixed already, or aren't worth mentioning here.
> > Anyone wants to double check, or believes otherwise?  I'll
> > be happy to adjust the patch.
> >   
> I'd say to just toss the file entirely, and remove mentions of it in the 
> documentation.  It's really just a relic of pre-web days; I'd be 
> astonished if there were any users who would think to look at it instead 
> of going to our website.

Are you saying that no one ever works off-line these days?