From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22399 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2004 17:00:45 -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 22384 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2004 17:00:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2004 17:00:44 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id EBDD4CDBB; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:00:42 -0800 (PST) To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 6.1 "frozen" References: <406361B3.5060308@gnu.org> <406375ED.1020708@gnu.org> <2914-Fri26Mar2004115305+0300-eliz@gnu.org> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <2914-Fri26Mar2004115305+0300-eliz@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:53:06 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00666.txt.bz2 On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:53:06 +0200, "Eli Zaretskii" said: >> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:14:37 -0500 >> From: Andrew Cagney >> > >> > 2004-03-25 David Carlton >> > >> > * PROBLEMS: Refer to gdb/1588 instead of gdb/826. >> >> Ok it's "frozen" except for doco changes such as this (and the above, >> and another entry I need to fix for frames that I forgot ...). Anyway, Eli? > I have no objections to David's suggestion, except that the manual > seems to already say that C++ symbols might need quoting in some > situations, right? I didn't see that when I just skimmed the manual, but I might have missed it. (I did see some other out-of-date things. Hmm.) > However, if the people who work on C++ support feel that this > particular problem needs to be in PROBLEMS, I don't object. I have mixed feelings about Michael's desire of mentioning everything that could be called a regression, no matter how small, in PROBLEMS. However, that's a separate argument; given that this issue is currently referred to in PROBLEMS, we might as well at least have the reference be accurate, while we continue our argument about the scope of problems. I'll apply the patch to mainline and 6.1. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com