This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix some 64-bit Objective-C bugs
- From: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- To: Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Adam Fedor <fedor at doc dot com>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, weigand at informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:52:38 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix some 64-bit Objective-C bugs
- References: <OF2F94C177.61BC23BD-ONC1256E20.0068EB5B@de.ibm.com>
Andrew Cagney wrote:
Yes, better safe than sorry. Ulrich, can IBM do the paperwork for all
the stuff that's approved (this would leave just frame cleanup).
OK, I've respun the s390 backend patches to adapt them to the latest
changes and also to fix everything reported by ARI (-Wari only, not -Wall).
I'll post the latest version shortly.
I'll then immediately start the legal process for
- the main backend patches (part 1 .. 4)
- the bi-arch patch
- the ObjC patch
(The Java patch was incorrect, and the DWARF-2 patch still awaits some
common code changes.)
I hope we can get this through in time for gdb 6.1 ...
What's the policy for the branch? In case the paperwork is still not
ready at the time the branch is created, can we still get the patches
in afterwards (after all, the contents are already approved ...)?
Things are a lot more flexible than GCC. In the past we've ended up
with s390 specific patches being committed to the branch. Also I've
seen your assignment lawyers in action - they move much faster than you
Main thing is to try and get the changes you depend on sorted out before