From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24903 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 20:50:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24894 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 20:50:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 20:50:33 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836472B89; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F81D598.4070601@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:50:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB schedule. References: <200310061954.h96JsfCP008508@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00107.txt.bz2 > I would rather skip gdb 6.0.1 unless something happens in the field > that mandates it. Less work on the branch => more resources for HEAD. Apparently location expressions don't work (I'm wondering why the test results didn't identify this, sigh). The fix is small so its the sort of thing that can be cheaply pushed into 6.0.1. However, yes, given the choice, I'd also also prefer to not do a 6.0.1. Andrew