From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8074 invoked by alias); 25 May 2004 21:47:21 -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 8052 invoked from network); 25 May 2004 21:47:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 May 2004 21:47:20 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 5929247D65; Tue, 25 May 2004 14:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 21:47:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Randolph Chung , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 6.1.1 2004-05-21-gmt Message-ID: <20040525214720.GK10684@gnat.com> References: <40B3B907.2030401@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40B3B907.2030401@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00167.txt.bz2 > Randolph, Joel, for HP/PA, should the architecture specific changes > (i.e., hp*-{tdep,nat}) be pulled into the branch? Thanks to the changes Randolph made, the HP/UX port is in better shape. I wouldn't argue against pulling the pa-specific files in, except that I am not sure whether some of them rely on some changes that were made only in mainline... Randolph? -- Joel