From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29536 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2007 00:51:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 29528 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2007 00:51:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:51:49 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BC4982A2; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 00:51:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F059810A; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 00:51:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ISj7P-00051w-5f; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:51:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Changes to signed char and unsigned char handling Message-ID: <20070905005143.GA31890@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20070705135402.GA4300@caradoc.them.org> <20070825011757.GA15793@caradoc.them.org> <20070903175312.GM12440@caradoc.them.org> <200709042240.l84Me9bh032691@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200709042240.l84Me9bh032691@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-09/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:40:09AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Bleah! It was my intention to test this new diff, and recheck my > sparc machine to see why your first diff caused me so many problems, > but I haven't found the time to do either. > > But this diff makes much more sense to me, so feel free to get it in. Thanks a lot. I know what you mean about time (what one of my friends calls the round tuits problem). I'm still interested in why the first patch caused you such trouble. But don't go out of your way if you can't check easily; I'm happy with this version. I've tested it again on x86_64-linux and committed. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery