Home Original page

PATCH: More stdbool tweaking

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@mvista.com
Thu Feb 7 21:13:00 GMT 2002 
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 11:07:32PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >If you've reverted your change, is there any immediate need to change 
> >>GDB?  Wasn't it all ``working'' before?  I guess I need to re-read the 
> >>thread. Anyway, I think BFD should be fixed before GDB 5.2 gets branched 
> >>(I got the what wrong but I don't think I got the how or why).
> >
> >
> >I've reverted my change, mostly.  But the point was that on my setup -
> >a recent ncurses installed makes the difference - GDB wasn't building
> >in the first place.  Obviously I want GDB to build.
> 
> 
> Yes.  But is it better to incure a little more short term pain for a 
> better longer term gain?
> 
> 
> >The current situation may be a little hackish, but the true/false code
> >always has been.  I'm all in favor of coming up with a more thorough
> >fix, but I'd rather put something in place now than leave GDB not
> >building.
> 
> 
> I can see two possible things happening.
> 
> - we fix it now.  ??.12 gets delayed a week
> 
> - we fix it later.  ??.12 doesn't get delayed
> 
> The problem I see with later is just how much later it might be.
> 
> Once the branch is cut I'd assume that such changes won't be considered 
> again until xx.?? has been released (in a month?).  The GDB 5.2 branch 
> is also ment to be cut soon and that too will (but to a much lesser 
> extent) put pressure on BFD to not change radically.

Well, no.  That's the point of cutting the branch.  Once it's cut, then
we can go ahead and do whatever we want on the trunk.


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
More information about the Binutils mailing list