* [rfc] was this patch reversed? @ 2004-05-21 20:53 Manoj Iyer 2004-05-22 4:52 ` Kevin Buettner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Manoj Iyer @ 2004-05-21 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb Was this patch reversed from the mainline tree? http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-04/msg00189.html This patch fixed the build break in PPC64. I recently tired to build the mainline tree on PPC64 as a 64bit binary. Thanks Manoj Iyer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [rfc] was this patch reversed? 2004-05-21 20:53 [rfc] was this patch reversed? Manoj Iyer @ 2004-05-22 4:52 ` Kevin Buettner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Kevin Buettner @ 2004-05-22 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Manoj Iyer; +Cc: gdb On Fri, 21 May 2004 12:29:58 -0500 (CDT) Manoj Iyer <manjo@austin.ibm.com> wrote: > Was this patch reversed from the mainline tree? I don't think so... > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-04/msg00189.html > > This patch fixed the build break in PPC64. I recently tired to build the > mainline tree on PPC64 as a 64bit binary. The patch in question deleted roughly a dozen lines from ppc-linux-tdep.c I've just done a "cvs update" on said file and do not see those deleted lines. (Which is as it should be.) I gather your build is broken again. Would you mind posting the build error? Thanks, Kevin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-05-22 4:52 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-05-21 20:53 [rfc] was this patch reversed? Manoj Iyer 2004-05-22 4:52 ` Kevin Buettner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox