From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 911 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2007 18:58:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 902 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2007 18:58:03 -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; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:58:00 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF17982E0; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:57:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9AF982DE; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:57:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HyuWK-0004Jd-QO; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:58:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 6.7 branch creation scheduled June 10th Message-ID: <20070614185812.GA16497@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , "Joseph S. Myers" , Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070608061902.GP3761@adacore.com> <1181847058.6629.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1181847058.6629.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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/msg00116.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 03:50:58PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > I posted this patch to the list a while back: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-04/msg00359.html > > If the patch is ok, I'd like to ask for its inclusion in GDB 6.7. I believe Joseph was looking at this patch earlier, and it was not working properly for him. Joseph, was that the same patch? Further comments, please reply to the patch instead of this message, please. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery