Testing Call frame information in .debug_frame section

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Petr" == Petr Hluzín <petr.hluzin@gmail.com> writes:

Petr> Are there more advantages? Are they pretty common? Is there an
Petr> automatized solution for them, yet?

>> One or two weeks after an initial submission, if there has been no
>> answer, just send a ping message as a follow-up to your patch.  Then do
>> it every week.

Petr> This sounds quite mechanical, boring and common to a lot of people
Petr> (submitters). Great example of task suitable for machines. (Why do you
Petr> people choose such suffering?)

I am just describing the system as it actually exists, not really
defending it or anything.  The way I look at it is that if you want to
get a patch in, you have to bear some of the burden.

gdb tried a patch tracker for a while but it didn't prove to be very
popular.  Maybe most maintainers prefer working via email; but it is
hard to know for sure.

Recently some GCC developers started using Rietveld for patch tracking
and review:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-01/msg00354.html

Doug suggested using it for GDB as well, but AFAIK nobody has set it up.

Maybe if you set it up, people would use it.

Tom