This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol
- To: dberlin at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:00:39 +0200
- CC: cgf at redhat dot com, fnasser at cygnus dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0101181329510.15385-100000@www.cgsoftware.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:32:30 -0500 (EST)
> From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>
> >
> > I agree. I was really thinking of this as a special case situation where
> > we could get patches into gdb when the patch maintainer is inexplicably
> > absent.
> >
> > If *anyone* disagrees with the patch then it shouldn't go in.
>
> Of course. But you have to admit, the situation we just had, as Jim
> pointed out, makes GDB look *really* bad.
I don't agree. I didn't follow the discussion about this particular
problem, but if the relevant maintainer goes off-line, and some of the
other maintainers have reservations about a suggested patch in the
absent maintainer's area, refraining from committing that patch is
IMHO a prudent thing to do.
In such a situation, you have several possible alternatives:
- talk the opposition into agreeing to the patch;
- suggest an alternative patch which avoids the problems which
triggered the opposition;
- wait for the maintainer to reappear and decide what to do.