From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14995 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2011 19:30:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 14981 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2011 19:30:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:30:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5RJUELZ002005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:30:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5RJUC32014572; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:30:14 -0400 From: Phil Muldoon To: Kevin Pouget Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] [python] Implement Inferior.current_inferior References: Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:30:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Kevin Pouget's message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:34:04 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2011-06/txt/msg00409.txt.bz2 Kevin Pouget writes: > Hi, > > I actually proposed and got approved a patch to solve this bug two months ago, > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2011-04/msg00389.html > > but I'm still waiting for these crazy copyright assignment papers to > cross the ocean, it looks like that they won't never reach the old > continent, too bad ... Ping the maintainers and see if they can rattle some FSF folks into action. I do not mind which patch fixes the issues. But please assign a bug to yourself if you are working on it, so we don't duplicate effort. (On that note, I did not assign it to myself yet either so touche). Whether your patch, or mine makes it in I don't mind. The patches looks similar, but mine has a few extra tests and accounts for the reference leaking/sigsegv. I would be happy to add your name to the ChangeLog as co-implementer if the maintainers think this is ok (and they approve the patch). Cheers, Phil