* expect 5.39 import
@ 2003-08-21 20:52 Andrew Cagney
2003-08-22 7:15 ` Nick Clifton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-08-21 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb, binutils, gcc
Hello,
I'm thinking of [blindly] importing expect 5.39. It appears to work
out-of-the-box on x86-64 GNU/Linux (I've not tested any other platforms
yet).
Comments, suggestions, additional reports of it working in the wild?
I'll follow this up in a few weeks when I'm actually in a position to do
an import.
enjoy,
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: expect 5.39 import
2003-08-21 20:52 expect 5.39 import Andrew Cagney
@ 2003-08-22 7:15 ` Nick Clifton
2003-08-22 14:56 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nick Clifton @ 2003-08-22 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb, binutils, gcc
Hi Andrew,
> I'm thinking of [blindly] importing expect 5.39.
What benefits does the 5.39 release provide ?
Cheers
Nick
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: expect 5.39 import
2003-08-22 7:15 ` Nick Clifton
@ 2003-08-22 14:56 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-08-22 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Clifton; +Cc: gdb, binutils, gcc
> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>> I'm thinking of [blindly] importing expect 5.39.
>
>
> What benefits does the 5.39 release provide ?
- it "just works" works on x86-64
- it puts us back in sync with the mainline
the down side is that:
- it may not work on some obscure platform
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: expect 5.39 import
2003-08-21 21:34 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
@ 2003-08-21 22:28 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-08-21 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain; +Cc: binutils, gcc, gdb
> Wow, I didn't even know the new expect release. I gotta give
> that a spin.
>
> I've been using expect 5.38 in my test bed and it's been working fine.
> Back in January 2003, I compared expect 5.38 with sourceware expect,
> and the gdb test results were the same.
Nice.
>> I'll follow this up in a few weeks when I'm actually in a position to do
>> an import.
>
>
> Can you file a PR and then I'll attach my attestation to it?
Good idea. http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1349
> By the time "a few weeks" comes up I'll have something to say about
> expect 5.39 too.
thanks,
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: expect 5.39 import
@ 2003-08-21 21:34 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-08-21 22:28 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2003-08-21 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ac131313, binutils, gcc, gdb
Wow, I didn't even know the new expect release. I gotta give
that a spin.
I've been using expect 5.38 in my test bed and it's been working fine.
Back in January 2003, I compared expect 5.38 with sourceware expect,
and the gdb test results were the same.
> I'll follow this up in a few weeks when I'm actually in a position to do
> an import.
Can you file a PR and then I'll attach my attestation to it?
By the time "a few weeks" comes up I'll have something to say about
expect 5.39 too.
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-08-22 14:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-08-21 20:52 expect 5.39 import Andrew Cagney
2003-08-22 7:15 ` Nick Clifton
2003-08-22 14:56 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-21 21:34 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-08-21 22:28 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).