From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30186 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2012 16:12:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 30157 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2012 16:11:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:11:45 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q51GBjQF005227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:11:45 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q51GBhH2003080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:11:44 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC patch] non-release srctrees: --enable-targets=all & 64bit & -lmcheck References: <20120518211410.GA32107@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:12:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120518211410.GA32107@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Fri, 18 May 2012 23:14:10 +0200") Message-ID: <87396fqaf4.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.97 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Jan> --enable-targets=all commonly discovers checked in regressions: [...] Jan> --enable-64-bit-bfd is required for full --enable-targets=all. Since Alan didn't want this, I think it would make sense to drop this part of the patch, but request that gdb developers use these settings anyway. If there are still a lot of regressions after this, we can ask again. Jan> -lmcheck is cheap enough to never be noticed and it also finds checked in Jan> regressions: I'm in favor of this part. Could you separate out just the gdb part and put it in? Tom