From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30263 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 00:20:53 -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 30228 invoked from network); 15 May 2003 00:20:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2003 00:20:52 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4F0KqH07939; Wed, 14 May 2003 20:20:52 -0400 Received: from post-office.corp.redhat.com (post-office.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.227]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4F0KqI11241; Wed, 14 May 2003 20:20:52 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (dj.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.222]) by post-office.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4F0KkZ17855; Wed, 14 May 2003 20:20:47 -0400 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4F0Kbm25552; Wed, 14 May 2003 20:20:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 00:20:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200305150020.h4F0Kbm25552@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: kelleycook@wideopenwest.com CC: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc-patches@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, cc@wideopenwest.com In-reply-to: <3ec295fd.195c.1804289383@wideopenwest.com> (message from Kelley Cook on Wed, 14 May 2003 14:16:13 -0500) Subject: Re: TOPLEVEL PATCH: accept more x86 variants References: <3ec295fd.195c.1804289383@wideopenwest.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 > ---=_webmail-1.dnv.wideopenwest.com3ec295fd > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="toplevel_x86.diff" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="toplevel_x86.diff" Note that, in general, it's preferable to explicitly list each character, in case locales or encodings rearrange the order of characters (like EBCDIC does). While it doesn't matter in this case, it's probably better to avoid ranges so that people don't get the idea that they're OK for all cases. Your patch is acceptable as-is, but if you could take the time to expand the ranges, that would be a little better for long-term portability.