From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3682 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2015 21:19:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 3648 invoked by uid 89); 30 Mar 2015 21:19:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp.gentoo.org Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (HELO smtp.gentoo.org) (140.211.166.183) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:19:35 +0000 Received: from vapier (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CC33340D08; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:19:00 -0000 From: Mike Frysinger To: Joel Sherrill Cc: Joel Brobecker , "gdb@sourceware.org" , Jan-Benedict Glaw Subject: Re: x86_64-elf gdb Message-ID: <20150330211934.GG25224@vapier> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Sherrill , Joel Brobecker , "gdb@sourceware.org" , Jan-Benedict Glaw References: <55171834.40509@oarcorp.com> <20150330163952.GE12083@adacore.com> <5B7C7627-4AA7-4276-B2EB-A9E5C170CBAA@oarcorp.com> <20150330205442.GG12083@adacore.com> <5519B945.8030605@oarcorp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cDtQGJ/EJIRf/Cpq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5519B945.8030605@oarcorp.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00119.txt.bz2 --cDtQGJ/EJIRf/Cpq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 754 On 30 Mar 2015 15:59, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On 3/30/2015 3:54 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > >> It built for me. But I don't have any way to test it. > >> Is that enough to submit a patch for the elf stanza addition? > > That seems odd to me. What would be the advantage of pushing > > that patch if it's a configuration that you can't test? > > > At the moment, x86_64-elf doesn't even build for binutils-gdb. It fails > due to a missing gdb configuration. >=20 > And if binutils-gdb doesn't complete successfully, that means gcc can't > be built for this target. so patch it locally, test everything, and only then send patches to the=20 respective projects ? i'm not sure why this is onerous ? this is how it's always done for new targets ... -mike --cDtQGJ/EJIRf/Cpq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-length: 819 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVGb3mAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WB9DgQAN8TcGOEfQnq+sU/1g7Tx5k7 itW1d3K48R/WVLs2sLgR/k+j6pl40Znkl8TSmhKM1fiARAMQxi58cT+Gg5APtZTr hW87BV6iQvAOwxtG+HUxVlEkeSe9NAd/FSc8ZIKeuSPVVldzH+KQLcIbHs73VDVq Oq6iYVBnVw+2qG1IQzMP28t17C/75MoicscM5D5K6l+lVXdoR2oxCW88JKGub8ZP 0WjuuhsKcTcifRbKQEPPsB5FREYe/S8GGRIejeVfK6+8CLHSogcf5V0qtJDeAyx7 H9pjC831ImYsRF7wnI+91Z4wL2FPTpQekeO//5FBnvYzLFjVQiw+u+i3FJzfIRML ayxQqVzcMJ+3GTAmWzw/VLDZfuRcpoa83YedIE1MOIbNglZOwjh0jFjH+k6rdDTL 8NMmhWeES8AEkRh5Fm3feyDgfN8PrFzkhkfQKHk0ioZfV7WrE90y8v3bTZk1ry6T vUXdvAqKDT56jjsoyCS/hm8tfnmQSfa6zvdyEi5JjWHYPVBZ5SErH0lzAUCMR6LI DUbXWC2+IE3SOsxdfre3HpLInLWhu8mxO7KRWtVUDT7ufH5WT2asCvXSV7ucENsW vuQVoMcimPaUeOx3ZRfe1ZzZH/Fo2XCU9a3WM5OA/7puwzoTk6F/NR/+NjCklH8o oIpjp2hBf8KVTDoykMRn =+yLZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cDtQGJ/EJIRf/Cpq--