This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [maint] Obsolete ARM et.al.
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>, Scott Bambrough <sbambrough at zimismobile dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, kwalker at arm dot com, drusling at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:47:33 +0000
- Subject: Re: [maint] Obsolete ARM et.al.
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> > PS. When is that patch I submitted a week ago going to be reviewed?
> People tend to assume that an RFC only gets comment if needed. If no
> one yells within a reasonable period of time (few days to a week) it
> gets to go in.
> For instance I removed IEEE_FLOAT. I did it as an RFC (left it on the
> table for a week) before committing.
Hmm, this IMO is bad. It means that trivial patches end up taking ages to
get through on the "no-one has objected rule", and makes development
With this approach multi-arching a back-end is going to take approximately
10mins-1hour to make a change (most of the changes tend towards the
1-2 hours to run the testsuite (probably more at the moment with all the
timeouts I'm getting)
1-2 weeks to get the patch committed.
Since I can't really start developing the next change until the first has
gone in (to do otherwise would require multiple source trees, which leads
to confusion which leads to mistakes) it means I'm developing on GDB with
less than 1% efficiency.