From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14733 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2009 17:21:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 14723 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2009 17:21:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mout6.freenet.de (HELO mout6.freenet.de) (195.4.92.96) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:21:02 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.21] (helo=11.mx.freenet.de) by mout6.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID ralf.corsepius@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #92) id 1MtPKq-0007CV-S4; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:20:56 +0200 Received: from hsi-kbw-078-043-063-233.hsi4.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de ([78.43.63.233]:64815 helo=[192.168.1.104]) by 11.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID ralf.corsepius@freenet.de) (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (port 465) (Exim 4.69 #94) id 1MtPKq-0006uu-LO; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:20:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4AC4E4F6.5080500@rtems.org> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:21:00 -0000 From: Ralf Corsepius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Ralf Corsepius , gdb@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing References: <20090930204828.GB31446@adacore.com> <4AC41F44.1040502@rtems.org> <20091001170744.GC6532@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20091001170744.GC6532@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00018.txt.bz2 On 10/01/2009 07:07 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> None of the patches I had submitted to gdb-patches had been applied. > > I am not aware of any patch from you that is still pending. > I remember one patch about a warning on Solaris that was rejected > because it turned out the warning was a GCC bug. > > Regardless of the specific situation, submitting patches does not > mean that they will be applied, neither in the HEAD nor the branch. > If they had been applied, you would have known because, either: > you checked the patch in for you; or you asked someone else to do it, > at which point the commit would have been confirmed to you and the > gdb-patches list. > Eg. this one: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00585.html and this one: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00556.html But I presume, I can consider the later one to be rejected - This doesn't help anybody, but ... you want it this way, so be it. Ralf