From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17789 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2009 02:49:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 17780 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Sep 2009 02:49:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 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; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 02:49:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CCC2BAB6D; Sat, 5 Sep 2009 22:49:41 -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 AHDUqtRyKXpo; Sat, 5 Sep 2009 22:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0497E2BAB62; Sat, 5 Sep 2009 22:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D9DD5F5915; Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:49:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 02:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Hui Zhu Cc: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [RFA] cleanup of syscall consts in process record Message-ID: <20090906024935.GD30677@adacore.com> References: <4AA2D95B.4090904@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00138.txt.bz2 > I think this patch is perfect. It make prec linux code very clear. Note that this also settles the argument of signed versus unsigned, I believe. enum types are represented as an int, right? > Does it can check in before 7.0 branch? If so, I can update the "Fix > cygwin build error with i386-linux-tdep.c" follow this patch. I don't see a reason why this patch should be applied after 7.0. I haven't looked at it yet, but it seemed fairly mechanical. -- Joel