* FW: (Another) Segfault in varobj.c
@ 2007-08-07 13:21 Robert Norton
2007-08-07 21:47 ` Nick Roberts
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Robert Norton @ 2007-08-07 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Roberts [mailto:nickrob@snap.net.nz]
> Sent: 07 August 2007 13:13
> To: Robert Norton
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: (Another) Segfault in varobj.c
> I can't say how risky it would be, I don't even understand
> why you would rather
> backport to 6.6 than update to 6.7.
I didn't think 6.7 had been released yet?
> If you do need to be
> selective about the
> changes, I would just suggest including those from mi-cmd-var.c/h too.
Thanks.
> --
> Nick
> http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: FW: (Another) Segfault in varobj.c
2007-08-07 13:21 FW: (Another) Segfault in varobj.c Robert Norton
@ 2007-08-07 21:47 ` Nick Roberts
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Nick Roberts @ 2007-08-07 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Norton; +Cc: gdb
> > I can't say how risky it would be, I don't even understand
> > why you would rather
> > backport to 6.6 than update to 6.7.
>
> I didn't think 6.7 had been released yet?
No but it was scheduled for release in July. I think current CVS is fairly
stable and recent changes have been conservative, so you probably could just
merge to that and get better results than with 6.6.
--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-08-07 21:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-08-07 13:21 FW: (Another) Segfault in varobj.c Robert Norton
2007-08-07 21:47 ` Nick Roberts
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox