From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23319 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2007 20:29:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 23311 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2007 20:29:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:29:11 +0000 Received: (qmail 24942 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2007 20:29:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 Oct 2007 20:29:09 -0000 To: Gaius Mulley Cc: Eli Zaretskii , deuling@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unbounded array support implemented (for Modula-2) References: <874pjs57zg.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> <46A847CE.7030907@de.ibm.com> <87ir866ocg.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> <87r6mqif61.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> <871weops83.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> <87fy0b6nnz.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87fy0b6nnz.fsf@j228-gm.comp.glam.ac.uk> (Gaius Mulley's message of "16 Oct 2007 17:15:44 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-10/txt/msg00429.txt.bz2 Gaius Mulley writes: > Jim Blandy writes: > >> Gaius Mulley writes: >> > - I wonder whether it might be better to hold off applying the patch >> > and attempt to solve the problem properly using the COMPUTE_BOUND >> > method explained above. >> >> You're the Modula-2 maintainer, so it's your call, but for what it's >> worth, if you think the full DWARF implementation --- both the GCC and >> GDB sides --- will take more than a few weeks, and if these unbounded >> arrays are a reasonably widely used language construct, I'd counsel >> you to go ahead and commit the current patch. The work is already >> done; there's no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good. > > Hi Jim, > > Just a small note to say that I'm going to follow your advice and > commit these original patches (and test codes) before too much time > elapses. I've re-tested the code on the current CVS snapshot and it > doesn't cause any extra regression failures. I guess I'd just like to > flag this as about to happen.. Sounds great.