This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?
- To: dberlin at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: Which version of gdb supports gcc 3.0 ABI?
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:07:24 -0500 (EST)
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200103131956.f2DJuCT31263@fillmore.constant.com><m2wv9tv0a7.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu><20010314132500.D6148@disaster.jaj.com><20010314212236.A28674@redhat.com> <m2elvzhfgy.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>
> Date: 14 Mar 2001 22:35:09 -0500
>
> Having some good sense left, i'll just drop out of the discussion
> at this point and get back to work. But there are plently of patches
> that have nothing to do with C++, or even me. It took a month to
> approve Jason Merrill's simple AUTO_MANGLING change (I know it sounds
> like a C++ fix, but it doesn't fall in my maintainership, so it's
> not), for instance. There are plently of examples.
>
> >
> > I won't go into great details about why there were problems with patch
> > acceptance but suffice it to say that not all of the problems were due
> > to the fact that GDB patch approval is (arguably) slow.
> And i'll leave this one alone. Suffice to say there are other problems
> as well, but they are mostly minor compared to patch approval time.
FWIW, I always had the GDB patches I posted as an RFA approved or
commented on in reasonable time (i.e. about a week).
In any case, a fork is not something people should consider easily,
just because someone's patch is not accepted quickly enough.