From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27288 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2008 17:09:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 27279 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2008 17:09:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:09:34 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06BF317F4B9 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:03:57 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m07H9QCC4177920 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:09:27 -0200 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m07H9PHv027344 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:09:26 -0200 Received: from [9.18.238.251] (dyn532128.br.ibm.com [9.18.238.251]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m07H9O4d027270; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:09:24 -0200 Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Wrap-up expression support for DFP. From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1199722798.5586.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20071220054926.148275471@br.ibm.com> <20071220055107.194393592@br.ibm.com> <1198705277.12907.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1199304046.12907.77.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1199722798.5586.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1199725764.5586.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 > > > + error (_("Unknown decimal floating point operation.")); > > > > Shouldn't this be internal_error? I mean, there couldn't be any valid > > op at this point, so this is a kind-of "can't happen" situation, isn't > > it? Sorry, I skipped this one. You are right. I changed it to an internal_error. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center