From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29417 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2011 17:50:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 29392 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2011 17:50:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f169.google.com) (209.85.210.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:50:42 +0000 Received: by iyf13 with SMTP id 13so2271382iyf.0 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:50:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.13.197 with SMTP id d5mr3994507iba.6.1298742640708; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:50:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.10.201 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:50:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4D667D55.5010309@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch libiberty include gcc]: PR debug/28047 DWARF output_file_names should really understand DOS pathnames From: Richard Guenther To: Kai Tietz Cc: GCC Patches , Binutils , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Nick Clifton , Jason Merrill Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Kai Tietz wrote: > 2011/2/24 Jason Merrill : >> OK (but you'll need to get a release manager to sign off if you want it in >> 4.6, since it isn't a regression). >> >> Jason >> > > Hi Richard, > > I would like to get this patch into 4.6. The outstanding issues about > file/path-name comparsion in other places of gcc will be something for > 4.7. But I would like to have the libiberty changes in as soon as > possible, as those are of interest for some adjustments in binutils, > too. > So I want to ask if patch is ok for gcc, too? I cannot comment about the libiberty pieces, those should get review by a libiberty maintainer which should decide whether they are ok for 4.6. If Jason is fine with the C++ changes I am, too. Richard. > Regards, > Kai >