From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 58510 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2019 14:11:39 -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 58498 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2019 14:11:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=compliance, hiring, Compliance, LATEST X-HELO: mail-ot1-f67.google.com Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com (HELO mail-ot1-f67.google.com) (209.85.210.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:11:37 +0000 Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id i20so4151731otl.0 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:11:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=A7DdljcXeDPlAIssN+BktMGjqGzSScm60TeBwhenaWM=; b=nulSHK6gtm2VvWc4t0lNc0iLiQkjZUiC61OPlB21e8Tm0z5ef4uwoQWodRcuoA7nqJ lzVnwQJ6q/PzJ3Q3vYeMuQ/qyisaWyNP8WGO27q4GqLX01M12xIxDIwmBUgKzP9VEIDi 4IMaDypWR7W95v5TY9dG3rC2lk8ap0Ws7gJkgNA3Zu5gx+DUJaaUSqrUY1tFK08NQ3ya uh6ktwNcUEymmWoS9q25bGHfcQW70Ke5Yt0so2s7064oHNEe+has4Cg6VUfef7r4fQ+Z +M/kIRhGQ6li74HFpPEswjsdZH03cMydGtwZEA+A5LHxQv/32QtZ0za3VZyZFuABAXRV dx7A== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20171010233010.58471-1-peeter.joot@lzlabs.com> <87371tq6uz.fsf@tromey.com> <87sgwr6de7.fsf@tromey.com> In-Reply-To: <87sgwr6de7.fsf@tromey.com> From: Peeter Joot Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] review request: implementing DW_AT_endianity To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Peeter Joot , Simon Marchi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 > Hi! What is the status of this? I'm still interested in getting this > patch into gdb. > Hi Tom, FSF legal is essentially unresponsive about the contribution paperwork that we submitted (Oct 2017.) We last heard from the FSF Licensing & Compliance Manager August 31st last year, who stated they were hiring a new administrator, and asked for some time to review. Our company legal asked if we could provide any additional information to help things along Oct 1st last year, and again Jan 14th this year -- I don't believe we received any reply from the FSF. The delays were so extensive that we've opted to use lldb as our backend debugger, and have started contributing changes to the lldb/clang/llvm stack instead. That said, if the FSF does process our contribution paperwork, it is still my intention to rebase my changes against binutils/LATEST and submit a patch. -- Peeter