This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v5] don't keep a gdb-specific date
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:21:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] don't keep a gdb-specific date
- References: <1371835865-15879-1-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <871u7rwodv dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <20130624224138 dot GC5326 at adacore dot com> <alpine dot BSF dot 2 dot 02 dot 1306242048260 dot 69392 at arjuna dot pair dot com> <87y59ythcd dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
> I think rather we have to back out the patch.
> IIRC you can't really change the definition of modules like that.
> sim using this file in gdb is an error, IMO, but not one I think is
> worth a lot of effort to fix.
> I'll prepare a reversion patch shortly.
How about duplicating version.in instead? The version number would
only need to be updated after creating the branch, and one extra file
every 3 months is not going to kill me.
I think having a common version.in and using BFD's date was a step
in the right direction. It would be a shame to lose all the efforts
we've made just because of some CVS module interdependency. This is
especially true if we ever want to move to another version-control
system where GDB and the sim would be one repository.
--
Joel