From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24298 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2009 17:28:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 24281 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Oct 2009 17:28:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:28:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n92HS0EF029477; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:28:00 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n92HRwXv032321 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:28:00 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n92HRvTP017913; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:27:57 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n92HRv7F017912; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:27:57 +0200 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:28:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Ralf Corsepius , Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing Message-ID: <20091002172757.GB17574@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20090930204828.GB31446@adacore.com> <4AC41F44.1040502@rtems.org> <20091001100900.GA16002@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:36:51 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > If it is already broken, and the patch doesn't make it worse, then it > seems to me that it is just an independent bug. Or did I misunderstand? Yes, it is an independent bug. But changing the code for the internal variable dependency fix cannot be verified for regressions when the current behavior is already broken. > If this is indeed an existing TUI bug, would you file it in bugzilla? Filed as PR tui/10722 (the internal variable dependency as PR tui/10723). Thanks, Jan