From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31769 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2009 22:22:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 31761 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2009 22:22:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:21:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBB12BAB99; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:21:57 -0400 (EDT) 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 28pgsPTtAj8u; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CA02BAB93; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7CA46F5C40; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] undefined regcache_set_valid_p in remote-mips.c Message-ID: <20090316222156.GD384@adacore.com> References: <20090316195430.GH9576@adacore.com> <20090316211507.GA384@adacore.com> <200903162119.18075.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903162119.18075.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 > Ah, I knew I had been there before: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-08/msg00475.html FWIW, I wonder what's best in this case: (1) Leave the code as is, fearing that we might break something, but with a strong suspicion that it is broken by an earlier change; (2) Try fixing it blindly using visual code inspection for testing. Short of being able to test the change ourselves, if you think as I do that the target is very likely broken already, our best is all we have to try to fix it. The alternative is to make a call for help from people who care about this target, and see if anyone is willing to help, at least with the testing and integration. Otherwise, we could consider deprecating this target. It's always a shame to lose a target, but what can we do if no one if we don't have the means to keep it alive? -- Joel