From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31158 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2008 22:06:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 31150 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2008 22:06:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:05:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7OM4iNm007158; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:05:14 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m7OM4XK8017690; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:04:33 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-10-23.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.23]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7OM4RN2017111; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:04:27 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id C215B37831C; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:04:36 -0600 (MDT) To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit] Remove frame_func_unwind References: <20080715183655.GA29872@caradoc.them.org> <48B1D5BE.7050202@earthlink.net> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <48B1D5BE.7050202@earthlink.net> (Stan Shebs's message of "Sun\, 24 Aug 2008 14\:42\:22 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (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: 2008-08/txt/msg00604.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: >> For the time being I just removed m88k-tdep.o from ALL_TARGET_OBS. Stan> Yeah, I believe Mark K has signed up to update this target. I suspect Stan> a lot of us have removed the m88k-tdep.o dependency in our local trees Stan> so we can test things in the meantime. :-) Thanks. What do you think of checking in this change? I'm reluctant to have the patch tester require a local patch -- it is a bit of a pain to manage, and I suspect I'll forget to back it out when the time comes. It would be easy enough to revert the change once the target is fixed. In fact this would be a prerequisite to actually testing the change :) Tom