From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12794 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2012 15:39:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 12757 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jun 2012 15:39:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:13 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SeTBX-0000LN-7K from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:39:11 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.106]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:38:36 -0700 Received: from [172.30.0.208] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:39:08 +0100 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Joel Brobecker CC: Jan Kratochvil , Subject: Re: Three weeks to branching (gdb 7.5 release) In-Reply-To: <20120611145805.GG2687@adacore.com> Message-ID: References: <20120511181737.GP29339@adacore.com> <20120529171658.GA11359@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120530220433.GR5492@adacore.com> <20120611145805.GG2687@adacore.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00356.txt.bz2 On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I do understand the importance of the issues concerned by Jan of course, > > but I also feel like deferring the MIPS stuff for a month and likely more > > is going to get me distracted too much by something else, > > Yeah, if the branch continues to be delayed much, we should go ahead > with your changes, and adjust if some regressions are found. I think that if the outstanding issues have not been resolved by your deadline early next month, then perhaps it would make sense to branch anyway and let other development continue while the issues are being addressed on the branch (and ported to trunk as applicable). What do you think? Would it make things easier? What's the usual practice? At least this approach seems to work for binutils. > > so given the circumstances may I kindly ask people to have a look into > > my proposal and request for discussion about the generic parts of the > > ISA bit changes as posted here: > > > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-05/msg00515.html > > I will try myself, but may not be the best reviewer. I appreciate that, what can I do to make the review easier for you? I saw your replies, thanks. I have been swamped with other stuff today and I am too tired already for my brain to produce any useful output, I'll try to follow up tomorrow. Maciej