From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12965 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2009 18:13:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 12956 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2009 18:13:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_55,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sif.is.scarlet.be (HELO sif.is.scarlet.be) (193.74.71.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:13:23 +0000 Received: from [172.17.1.10] (ip-81-11-254-176.dsl.scarlet.be [81.11.254.176]) by sif.is.scarlet.be (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n58ID4gP009193; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:13:05 +0200 Subject: Re: Patch : gdbserver get_image_name on CE From: Danny Backx Reply-To: danny.backx@scarlet.be To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200906072029.14094.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <1244366297.11918.210.camel@pavilion> <200906071916.03048.pedro@codesourcery.com> <1244401967.11918.226.camel@pavilion> <200906072029.14094.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:13:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1244484792.11918.241.camel@pavilion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: sif 20001; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00189.txt.bz2 On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 20:29 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Sunday 07 June 2009 20:12:47, Danny Backx wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-06-07 at 19:16 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > > It's fine to send unfinished patches for comments, if you'd like, but > > > please say so explicitly, so I don't waste time trying to understand > > > what they're for, for nothing. > > > > This one isn't for nothing, it fixes a problem. > > Sorry, you missed my point. "for nothing" refered to my waste of time, > not to the usefulness of the patch. Please do realize that if you don't > explain what the patch does, than whoever reviews it has to stare > at the code and try to make some sense of it. If the patch > isn't obvious (this one isn't obvious to me), and doesn't > come with explanations, it is not going to be applied. The onus > is on you to make it as easy as possible for a reviewer/maintainer to > accept a patch. I really do not mean to sound harsh. It is just > that it is easy to not realise that it does take time to review > a patch, and the backlog isn't getting shorter... > > > It's just not all of the > > work to get gdb/gdbserver to work for x86/ce . > > I understand. > > On Sunday 07 June 2009 20:12:47, Danny Backx wrote: > > CE -> unicode, both ARM and x86. > > The DLL name was in the right place, it's just the code to read it > > didn't work right. > > It's the explanation of what's wrong with it that's missing. Ok, thanks for pointing this out. I'll try to be clearer next time. Danny -- Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info