From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2660 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2007 20:40:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 2652 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2007 20:40:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:40:37 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF103982DE; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:40:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AA998212; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:40:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HyZe2-0002DL-Jg; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:40:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Anmol P. Paralkar" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Keeping binutils/{bfd, opcodes} and gdb/{bfd, opcodes} in synch. Message-ID: <20070613204046.GA8474@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Anmol P. Paralkar" , gdb@sourceware.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 03:24:25PM -0500, Anmol P. Paralkar wrote: > Hello, > > What is the general methodology for keeping the gdb/{opcodes, bfd, ...} and > binutils/{opcodes, bfd, ...} in synch with each other? Is there some > "synch policy" that GDB development follows? (I see quite a differential > between these in gdb-6.6 and binutils-2.17). That's because they weren't released at the same time, of course! The two projects share a common CVS repository; their copies are exactly the same. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery