From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30423 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2008 01:16:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 30414 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2008 01:16:13 -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; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:15:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7D8983A1; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:15:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3174A9831E; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:15:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JVGKE-0008Rs-To; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:15:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:16:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb ml Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 6.8 release process created! Message-ID: <20080301011542.GA32177@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb ml References: <1204323572.18153.67.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080301001957.GF25865@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080301001957.GF25865@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 04:19:57PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > > I just noticed that gdb/gdbserver/linux-ppc64-low.c is missing in the > > branch. gdbserver doesn't compile on Power systems because of that. > > Thanks for letting me know. So far, I don't understand how this could > have happened. I did the following command (from sourceware): > > % cvs -f -d /cvs/src rtag \ > -D "2008-02-26 10:00-gmt" gdb_6_8-2008-02-26-branchpoint gdb This is probably CVS breaking, but I can tell you the cause if you haven't noticed it - Ulrich deleted the file on HEAD after the branchpoint. It's probably a quirk of -D, which has never been one of CVS's strong points. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery