* [rfc] was this patch reversed?
@ 2004-05-21 20:53 Manoj Iyer
2004-05-22 4:52 ` Kevin Buettner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Manoj Iyer @ 2004-05-21 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
Was this patch reversed from the mainline tree?
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-04/msg00189.html
This patch fixed the build break in PPC64. I recently tired to build the
mainline tree on PPC64 as a 64bit binary.
Thanks
Manoj Iyer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [rfc] was this patch reversed?
2004-05-21 20:53 [rfc] was this patch reversed? Manoj Iyer
@ 2004-05-22 4:52 ` Kevin Buettner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Buettner @ 2004-05-22 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Manoj Iyer; +Cc: gdb
On Fri, 21 May 2004 12:29:58 -0500 (CDT)
Manoj Iyer <manjo@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
> Was this patch reversed from the mainline tree?
I don't think so...
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-04/msg00189.html
>
> This patch fixed the build break in PPC64. I recently tired to build the
> mainline tree on PPC64 as a 64bit binary.
The patch in question deleted roughly a dozen lines from ppc-linux-tdep.c
I've just done a "cvs update" on said file and do not see those deleted
lines. (Which is as it should be.)
I gather your build is broken again. Would you mind posting the build
error?
Thanks,
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-05-22 4:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-05-21 20:53 [rfc] was this patch reversed? Manoj Iyer
2004-05-22 4:52 ` Kevin Buettner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox