From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-18969-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21900 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2004 04:00:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21893 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2004 04:00:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Aug 2004 04:00:09 -0000
Received: from zaretski ([80.230.155.37])
	by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR)
	with ESMTP id ECG09287;
	Sun, 8 Aug 2004 06:59:56 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 04:00:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Message-Id: <8296-Sun08Aug2004065722+0300-eliz@gnu.org>
CC: ibr@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr, gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <41152002.9020708@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sat, 07
	Aug 2004 14:31:30 -0400)
Subject: Re: GDB 6.2.1?
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <41128FD4.5020702@gnu.org> <20040805204835.GI1192@gnat.com> <41139F3F.7040508@gnu.org> <20040806161616.GO1192@gnat.com> <41151A34.1000704@gnu.org> <41152002.9020708@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00116.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 14:31:30 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> 
> > I'll commit the ``absolute source path'' patch then 6.2.1 is good to go (well depending on how Eli and Mark resolve the i386 change). 
> 
> I'm going to back out of my decision here :-(
> 
> I've looked over the patch and am really reluctant to back-port it 
> without a testcase illustrating what it fixed.

If you are talking about the ``absolute source path'' patch, then I
tend to agree that 6.2.1 could do without it.