From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11949 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2002 08:00:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11854 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 08:00:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 08:00:29 -0000 Received: from cse.cygnus.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA03968; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (vpnuser.sfbay.redhat.com [10.255.17.132]) by cse.cygnus.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id XAA24136; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:29:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2K7TFV25243; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 04:29:15 -0300 To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB CVS won't build on OSF4.0's cc References: <15134.37007.772051.431723@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <15140.51449.939073.693253@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <15511.30770.115770.867801@localhost.redhat.com> <15511.34746.193064.112834@localhost.redhat.com> <3C97F673.7080306@cygnus.com> <15512.4777.468034.323283@localhost.redhat.com> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Elena Zannoni's message of "Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:40:09 -0500" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0805 (Gnus v5.8.5) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00381.txt.bz2 On Mar 20, 2002, Elena Zannoni wrote: > Andrew Cagney writes: >> > Other than the one that came with the patch posted to this mailing >> > list? I don't think so? Should I create one, install the patch and >> > then close it? >> >> I counted 4 or 5! You should look at gdb/390, there may still be >> ``issues''. > There is also 294 (which is essentially a duplicate of 390). Alex, > can you take a look? Maybe your configury test needs to be made a bit > more sophisticated. This is a totally different subject. This patch is for a build error on OSF1/DU/Tru64. Both PRs you mention are about TOC problems on AIX. >> > I'm not aware of such GDB policies :-( >> I think people doing this are viewed in a positive light (however there >> isn't any strict requirement :-). I never thought such a simple patch would take so long to get in (my fault; I dropped the ball in revising the patch as requested for a long while). Anyway, when a patch is ready, I see little value in creating a PR. To me, it feels like pure overhead. If you have a different opinion, please enlighten me :-) -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer