From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29739 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2009 18:04:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 29687 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2009 18:04:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:04:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9FI3l0q006122; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:03:47 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9FI3kL7002184; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:03:47 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9FI3jlt017903; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:03:46 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5D2C837828F; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:03:45 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Michael Eager , "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for Xilinx MicroBlaze References: <4AD74E86.1020500@eagercon.com> <20091015164724.GC5272@adacore.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:00:13 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 Tom> How would this be done? Tom> Users might be using an old gcc or a new one. Joel> The only solution I see to this problem would be that users of a recent Joel> GCC would have to use a recent GDB. Tom> The problem is that this also implies that users stuck on an old compiler Tom> will be stuck with an old gdb. Just to be clear, I don't want to be a spoiler about this. It is fine by me to move forward like this. In fact I'd be interested to hear how gdb has dealt with this problem in the past. I'm also sure this won't be the last time we're in this situation. Tom