From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7963 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2002 15:38:48 -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 7925 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2002 15:38:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2002 15:38:41 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id PAA03361; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:38:39 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma003294; Fri, 11 Jan 02 15:38:37 GMT Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18747; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:38:36 GMT Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25137; Fri, 11 Jan 2002 15:38:36 GMT Message-Id: <200201111538.PAA25137@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Andrew Cagney cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: Changing the C/C++ compiler for gdb testsuite runs In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:26:33 EST." <3C3F0429.6070009@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:38:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2 > > > But since they don't come from the same CVS tree, I can't see how to do > > that cleanly without dicking around with the common code directories such > > as libiberty and include -- experience has shown that with the public CVS > > repositories that is fraught with problems. I have done it in the past, > > but it breaks the principal that the sources you are testing are the > > sources you are committing, so it isn't really a viable option. > > > Is the experience recent? At present mechanical processes help to > ensure that liberty and include are kept very much in sync (typically > only hours separate commits). > > Andrew > Well it can happen at any time when one product is coming off a branch and the other of the trunk (or a different branch). When gcc forks (or gdb forks) there is bound to be divergence (for obvious reasons). R.