From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15595 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2003 17:46:07 -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 15582 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2003 17:46:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2003 17:46:05 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8BHk29Q013819; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:46:02 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8BHk2HK003425; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:46:02 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8BHk11V003424; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:46:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:46:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200309111746.h8BHk11V003424@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: rolling 5.3.92 tomorrow X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 drow> The only other issue I know of is that Mark's per-objfile-data patch, drow> and my fix for the assertion failures in Java, aren't on the branch drow> yet. Should we move those patches over? I would love to have the Java assertion patch on the branch. It's a very localized patch -- it just changes the order of two tests, really. It's easy to verify that it can't break anything. And on the upside, it fixes a crash bug. Michael C