From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6349 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2003 23:42:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6342 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2003 23:42:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 2003 23:42:50 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7ENgnt20910 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:42:49 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7ENgns12136; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:42:49 -0400 Received: from [150.1.200.14] (vpn50-56.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.56]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h7ENgmED010625; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:42:49 -0400 Subject: Re: duplicated source file names From: Keith Seitz To: jwilliams@itee.uq.edu.au Cc: "insight@sources.redhat.com" In-Reply-To: <3F3C1EE9.5070802@itee.uq.edu.au> References: <3F3B355C.5040904@itee.uq.edu.au> <1060877014.1578.17.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3F3C06C7.5090006@itee.uq.edu.au> <1060903735.1578.33.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <3F3C1EE9.5070802@itee.uq.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1060904615.1578.37.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:42:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-q3/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 16:44, John Williams wrote: > I have the source of this cross-gdb and can build it myself, if I feel > inspired one day I might look into it. Recommend any resources (old > mailing list archives perhaps?) where I might find info on how the bug > was fixed? I don't think it's ever been fixed. If it has, it's because of a massive amount of work going on in the symbol readers and symbol table. You'd not likely back-patch 5.0 (or event 5.3) with it. I encourage you to file a bug on it. Heck, make their day: file a bug and submit a dejagnu testcase for it! This way, there's one more failure to track. Keith