From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6011 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2005 20:22:28 -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 5994 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2005 20:22:26 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:22:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9OKMMiF029403; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:22:22 -0400 Received: from devserv.devel.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.1]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j9OKMHV31597; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:22:17 -0400 Received: from theseus.home..redhat.com (vpn26-18.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.26.18]) by devserv.devel.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j9OKMB6x004772; Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:22:13 -0400 To: Waldek Hebisch Cc: Gaius Mulley , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: info about reading dwarf2 set types References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Waldek Hebisch's message of "Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:17:26 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 Waldek Hebisch writes: > Gaius Mulley wrote: >> last May, Waldek Hebisch, posted a patch to allow gdb to read set >> types when the debugging information was held in dwarf2 format. I see >> that the patch was not applied to the current CVS or the gdb-6.3 >> branch, and I was wondering why this was the case? > > The patch is still waiting for review. I did not ping it since I spent > most of the last four month off-line. I can't approve changes to the Dwarf 2 reader any more, but for what it's worth, the patch looks fine to me. Have you run the test suite on the current sources with and without the patch, to check for regressions?