From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8127 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 19:16:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8081 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 19:16:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 19:16:50 -0000 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA23541; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3OJGit15057; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:16:44 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:16:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020424191644.ZM15056@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: "David S. Miller" "Re: which patches to review" (Apr 24, 10:38am) References: <20020423.220943.39181580.davem@redhat.com> <3CC6D4E2.E5858735@apple.com> <3CC6E84D.2090403@cygnus.com> <20020424.103856.00478620.davem@redhat.com> To: "David S. Miller" , ac131313@cygnus.com Subject: Re: which patches to review Cc: shebs@apple.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00967.txt.bz2 On Apr 24, 10:38am, David S. Miller wrote: > Right now all of the Sparc Linux bits are in a pending state because > they need to be sequenced after the multi-arch bits. Currently, this > one is holding up sparc-linux-tdep from being added: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-04/msg00710.html I just took a quick look at this one and I think it's okay. I was going to complain about the fact this... +#if (GDB_TARGET_IS_SPARC64) +#define FP_MAX_REGNUM (FP0_REGNUM + 48) +#else +#define FP_MAX_REGNUM (FP0_REGNUM + 32) +#endif ...appears in the new sparc-tdep.h, but then I realized that this was simply moved over verbatim from sparc-tdep.c. It seems reasonable to me that this could/should be cleaned up in a later patch. Anyway, I recommend that David's lynch-pin patch be approved. Kevin