From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30772 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2002 04:40:05 -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 30743 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2002 04:40:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2002 04:40:04 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA54dvo09536; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:39:57 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfa] clean up lookup_symbol_aux References: <15813.47315.184918.420735@localhost.redhat.com> <15815.7452.182072.127565@localhost.redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 20:40:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <15815.7452.182072.127565@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:21:32 -0500, Elena Zannoni said: > David Carlton writes: >> So ifdeffing it out won't change the behavior of GDB at all, it'll >> just preserve another one of GDB's mysteries for that much longer. >> But ifdeffing it won't hurt anything, either, so I can certainly do >> it if you'd be happier. > Yes, please. It wouldn't be the first time that weird things happen > because of apparently insignificant changes. Fair enough. > (see the old proverbial wait_for_inferior). ? >> If you can look at the bugfix one first, I'd appreciate it, because >> I don't want to move out the local/symtab/psymtab stuff before >> having that bugfix patch accepted. (If the bugfix patch isn't >> accepted, moving out the other parts of the code might lead to >> bizarre consequences.) > Ok approved. Good catch. Thanks. Then I'll apply those two tomorrow, and submit a new RFA for a patch which does the minsym stuff, together with an analysis of the differences between the two versions of the minsym code. Joel has been kind enough to run it on his machine (but I haven't yet looked at the results yet!), so we'll see whether or not I got it right on HPUX. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu