From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7604 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2001 08:17:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6737 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2001 08:16:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2001 08:16:16 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1345) id BC4D8F28C6; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 03:15:30 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Hilfinger To: ac131313@cygnus.com Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3C10E386.2070809@cygnus.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:43:02 -0500) Subject: Re: More code code dropping References: <20011129005901.A60085@molenda.com> <200112070641.WAA01521@localhost.localdomain> <3C10E0F3.2010607@cygnus.com> <3C10E386.2070809@cygnus.com> Message-Id: <20011208081530.BC4D8F28C6@nile.gnat.com> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 00:17:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 Folks, In discussing with Andrew Cagney the proper procedure for depositing ACT's Ada-related changes to GDB, I raised the question of what the most useful patch would be (or if it matters). Inasmuch as ACT's current GDB sources are derived from the GDB 5.0 release from spring 2000, last re-merged in September 2000, I thought that a diff against the gdb 5.0 release was probably most useful. Andrew had suggested a patch against the latest, bleeding-edge changes. Since the idea of a diff is to give the curious some idea of our changes, it seemed to me that the latter diff would show mostly undoings of more recent changes to GDB. If anyone else out there has an opinion on this subject, I'd like to hear it. Paul Hilfinger