From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7563 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2007 15:33:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 7533 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2007 15:33:45 -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; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:33:37 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA369810C for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:33:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A561D9810B for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:33:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IObAE-0007ts-0e for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:33:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB transition to GPLv3 should now be complete Message-ID: <20070824153333.GA30256@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20070824151251.GG6056@adacore.com> <200708241528.l7OFSgDi030135@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708241528.l7OFSgDi030135@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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: 2007-08/txt/msg00190.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 05:28:42PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:12:51 -0400 > > From: Joel Brobecker > > > > GDB is now licensed under the terms of GPLv3. > > > > There is one issue identified left before the release: printing of > > signed and unsigned characters and strings. I found the patch > > submission, but it looks like it never went in (for lack of agreement > > on it?). > > Yes, and I think the only reasonable thing to do in this case is to > stick with historical behaviour. I posted a patch for what I believe is a better reasonable choice, on July 5th. If you don't think it is acceptable, could you respond to it, please? http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-07/msg00101.html -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery