From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20449 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2008 18:22:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 20384 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2008 18:22:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:21:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B9E2A9634; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:21:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Wp9FByjWZjlx; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:21:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C152A9626; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BABFBE7ACD; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:21:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:30:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix address in call to val_print Message-ID: <20081122182132.GH4318@adacore.com> References: <20081122051123.GC4318@adacore.com> <20081122175354.GF4318@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00617.txt.bz2 > My reasoning was that I do not know whether it is easy to make a test > case or not. I would have to look into it. Aha, I see. What I understood from your original patch was that Paul encountered an actual problem in the Archer GDB, which prompted the patch. The scenario in which Archer GDB fails before the patch and passes after was all that I was wondering about. If we can put that example and stuff it in a testcase now, then let's do it if you have the time. If it depends on some functionality that's still only in the Archer repo, then let's defer that until that piece of functionaly is in the FSF repo. In the meantime, the code patch is OK to go in (unless you'd prefer to hold off on it, but I would imagine that the fewer local changes in the Archer repo, the better). -- Joel