From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28759 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2014 10:14:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28748 invoked by uid 89); 29 Dec 2014 10:14:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: service87.mimecast.com Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:14:27 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.140]) by service87.mimecast.com; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:14:24 +0000 Received: from SHAWIN202 ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:14:24 +0000 From: "Thomas Preud'homme" To: "'Joel Brobecker'" Cc: References: <000101d02201$e9b4b430$bd1e1c90$@arm.com> <20141228034726.GA2123@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20141228034726.GA2123@adacore.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH, ARM] Support for value 3 of Tag_ABI_VFP_args ARM attribute Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000301d02350$313224b0$93966e10$@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: 114122910142404601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00659.txt.bz2 > From: Joel Brobecker [mailto:brobecker@adacore.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 3:47 AM >=20 > No problem. >=20 > You forgot to provide the ChangeLog entry. FTR, here it is: >=20 > 2014-12-25 Thomas Preud'homme >=20 > * arm-tdep.c (arm_gdbarch_init): Explicitly handle value 3 of > Tag_ABI_VFP_args. Also replace hardcoded values by enum values in > the > switch handling the different values of Tag_ABI_VFP_args. Thanks. >=20 > Also, I don't think the cast to (int) are necessary, are they? Sigh. Indeed, they aren't. My apologize. I remember adding them after seein= g an error but I cannot reproduce it. So either I compiled with g++ (why wo= uld I?) or the error came from something else in the patch which I changed = as well. Should I post a patch to fix this or can I commit it as obvious? Best regards, Thomas