From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18215 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2011 10:58:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 18188 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2011 10:58:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-qw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.216.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:57:56 +0000 Received: by qwd7 with SMTP id 7so2806994qwd.0 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:57:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.183.193 with SMTP id ch1mr3361894qcb.107.1298804273700; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:57:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.89.197 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:57:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4D667D55.5010309@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:58:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch libiberty include gcc]: PR debug/28047 DWARF output_file_names should really understand DOS pathnames From: Kai Tietz To: DJ Delorie Cc: GCC Patches , Binutils , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Nick Clifton , Jason Merrill Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00375.txt.bz2 2011/2/26 Richard Guenther : > 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 >> > Hello DJ, any comments about the libiberty part of this patch? Thanks in advance, Kai