From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11370 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2010 16:11:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 11344 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2010 16:11:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: Tom Tromey To: Dodji Seketeli Cc: Project Archer , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: Fedora 14 debug proposal References: Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Dodji Seketeli's message of "Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:49:05 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2010-q2/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Dodji" == Dodji Seketeli writes: Dodji> I can take this part if it helps. Thanks... I don't expect this to be a big deal, but I may call on you anyway ;-) Dodji> I guess at worst, upstream will require a flag to get the Dodji> .debug_{pug,aranges,pubnames,pubtypes} section back for a little Dodji> while before removing the code completely? I wouldn't bother with an option, but then I'm not very concerned about whether this particular change goes upstream. Of course, that is easy for me to say -- I will do whatever Jakub thinks is best here. Tom