From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19711 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2013 14:40:20 -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 19695 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jun 2013 14:40:18 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_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; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:40:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5PEeDbi009836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:40:14 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-102.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.102]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5PEe6hS001119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:40:09 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] don't keep a gdb-specific date References: <1371835865-15879-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <871u7rwodv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130624224138.GC5326@adacore.com> <87y59ythcd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130625142141.GF5326@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20130625142141.GF5326@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:21:41 -0700") Message-ID: <87ppvatfsp.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: 2013-06/txt/msg00702.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Tom> I think rather we have to back out the patch. Tom> IIRC you can't really change the definition of modules like that. Tom> sim using this file in gdb is an error, IMO, but not one I think is Tom> worth a lot of effort to fix. Tom> I'll prepare a reversion patch shortly. Joel> How about duplicating version.in instead? The version number would Joel> only need to be updated after creating the branch, and one extra file Joel> every 3 months is not going to kill me. I wonder what would happen if we added gdb/common/version.in to the sim module definition. Maybe checkouts on old branches would just get a warning instead of an error. A quick experiment with an explicit checkout seems to confirm this. So maybe this is salvageable after all. I'm going to try updating CVSROOT/modules and then check out some old branches, and see what happens. Please bear with me. I'll revert that change if it causes a problem. Tom