From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9105 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2012 16:59:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 9081 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2012 16:59:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:59:42 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3822E0ED; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id aHYeHggiBgLy; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3939E2E0E3; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:59:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 10360C8803; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:59:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pierre Muller , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI web page, generated using script inside CVS tree in gdb/contrib/ari directory Message-ID: <20121114165921.GG4847@adacore.com> References: <002701cdc0b9$542d2560$fc877020$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20121112180707.GQ4847@adacore.com> <87sj8c2l44.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sj8c2l44.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 > FWIW I tend to favor more use of gnulib in gdb. In general I think the > pros outweigh the cons; especially since it seems reasonably easy to get > fixes into gnulib, and because importing a new gnulib snapshot is also > simple. Same for me. > I think the primary con is that a gnulib module may have a bug, and then > we have to fix it elsewhere first. This doesn't seem to be a major > problem. I think it's actually the same as having to fix the problem in GDB because the gnulib maintainers have been pretty responsive with my patches so far. -- Joel