From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21708 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2004 09:28:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21697 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2004 09:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Jul 2004 09:28:04 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-206-118.inter.net.il [80.230.206.118]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id DNZ97647; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 12:27:14 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 09:28:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-Id: <7137-Sat03Jul2004122237+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: jimb@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040702224047.GA21295@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:40:47 -0400) Subject: Re: Delay the branch for E500 native support Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040702224047.GA21295@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:40:47 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > I would really have liked for GDB 6.1 to contain inter-compilation-unit > reference support too. If the timing doesn't work out, it doesn't work > out - if the schedule holds there may even be another release this > year. The intercu example is not a good analogy, IMHO: it was a new feature that was totally absent from the codebase. Jim's situation is somewhat different: there's a half-baked port already in the CVS. To me, it doesn't make sense to release a new version with incomplete support for some platform, where work is under way to make it complete in a week or so. But then I never liked the ``release every N months no matter what'' policy, either. What's so sacred about having the release happen on a certain date in July, anyway?