From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28942 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2013 14:06:51 -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 28932 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jun 2013 14:06:51 -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 14:06:50 +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 r5PE6icr013112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:06:44 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-102.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.102]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5PE6gYE018089 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:06:43 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: Joel Brobecker , 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> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Hans-Peter Nilsson's message of "Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:52:54 -0400 (EDT)") Message-ID: <87y59ythcd.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/msg00698.txt.bz2 H-P> The "sim" CVS module explicitly mentions (includes) H-P> gdb/version.in: that needs to be tweaked too, so "sim" can H-P> (continue to) be checked out without gdb and then built on its own. H-P> (Hopefully not a surprise?) Thanks. I think rather we have to back out the patch. IIRC you can't really change the definition of modules like that. sim using this file in gdb is an error, IMO, but not one I think is worth a lot of effort to fix. I'll prepare a reversion patch shortly. sorry about the mess, Tom