From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2512 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2013 19:44:58 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 2474 invoked by uid 89); 8 Apr 2013 19:44:58 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:44:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r38JiuOm029676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:44:56 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r38JitnN012332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:44:55 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [0/10] RFC: remove obj_section field References: <87txp98l6a.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87txp98l6a.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:41:01 -0700") Message-ID: <878v4su7rc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> This series removes general_symbol_info::obj_section. I'm going to check this in now. Please let me know if it causes problems. I'll debug them as soon as I'm able. This may conceivably cause build failures on some hosts. I am happy to write patches for this as well, just send the errors in email. I rebased the series on today's trunk, re-built each patch, and regtested the result. So I think things should be reasonably ok. In one case a patch needed a couple of changes after rebasing; I will resent that shortly. Tom