This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [maint] sim and common

From: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
To: cgd at broadcom dot com
Cc: "Andrew Cagney" <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>,"Nick Clifton" <nickc at redhat dot com>,"Andrew Cagney" <ac131313 at redhat dot com>,"Geoff Keating" <geoffk at redhat dot com>,"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:22:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [maint] sim and common
References: <3C85A44B.6090403@cygnus.com><15537.43529.140988.838892@toenail.toronto.redhat.com><3CB1C857.9080902@cygnus.com><15538.58681.963609.704984@toenail.toronto.redhat.com><mailpost.1018357082.12343@news-sj1-1><yov5g024px2q.fsf@broadcom.com>

>>>>> "cgd" == cgd  <cgd@broadcom.com> writes:

  >> While I agree with this point, I also like the idea of having a
  >> devil's advocate to approve sim/common patches.  In the heat of the
  >> moment, it's easy to think of patches to sim/common to solve
  >> port-specific problems that are not in the best interest of all
  >> simulators.

  cgd> For what it's worth, I agree with Ben here.  8-)

  cgd> I'd _prefer_ to have others review my changes (as long i can
  cgd> get that review in a timely fashion)...

Agreed--and as I stated, I don't believe there is any evidence to
suggest that timeliness is an issue at this point.

Ben

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [maint] sim and common
  - From: Andrew Cagney

References:
- Re: [maint] sim and common
  - From: Ben Elliston
- Re: [maint] sim and common
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: [maint] sim and common
  - From: Ben Elliston
- Re: [maint] sim and common
  - From: cgd

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]