Hi Andrew, >> No wonder you lost the HP maintainer > I don't understand what you mean here. Ohhhh I'm crossing the politically correct line again, where's the valium. What I meant you made probably him jump through so many hoops as you are making me you probably just pissed the guy off so he went looking for another job ( he probably is back programming windows now ). I'll readily admit to being a hothead ( sometimes justifiably so ). Some of the stuff I'm being asked to do by you has very little bearing on code quality bugwise just Andrew's coding style vs my own. If anything the code quality may be deteriorating owing to being asked to move code around so much & possibly being tired of retesting it, I currently have 4 versions of the code to support the post 5.0 32 & 64 bit patches the 5.0 32 & 64 bit patches & a lot of other work to do besides & probably falling back on it, when enthuasism is low my productivity deteriorates badly, this crap is pissing me off. I will remove the non multi arch definitions when I don't have to support gdb-5.0. The last patch I posted you took 5 months to come back with comments, Alan Cox usually takes 30 minutes & he a very busy man Being overbearing may be stifling gdb. We did our first 31 bit gdb drop 20 months ago. Even redhat has a experimental 64 bit drop for the last 6 months & it still isn't gnu.org the repository . D.J. Barrow Gnu/Linux for S/390 kernel developer eMail: djbarrow@de.ibm.com,barrow_dj@yahoo.com Phone: +49-(0)7031-16-2583 IBM Germany Lab, Schönaicherstr. 220, 71032 Böblingen Andrew Cagney on 15.08.2001 07:51:38 Please respond to Andrew Cagney To: Denis Joseph Barrow/Germany/Contr/IBM@IBMDE cc: ac131313@cygnus.com Subject: Re: New gdb 31 & 64 bit patches for S/390 > No wonder you lost the HP maintainer. I don't understand what you mean here. Andrew