From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30460 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2009 01:53:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 30334 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Sep 2009 01:53:48 -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; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:53:42 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE1C2BAB54; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:53:41 -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 MEWJyrt2V4yt; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1F52BAB4F; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:53:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 04FCAF593C; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:53:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii' , 'Mark Kettenis' , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA-v3] Fix a windows bug if two watchpoints are used Message-ID: <20090925015337.GJ2112@adacore.com> References: <000301c9e4e6$b40c5d50$1c2517f0$@u-strasbg.fr> <001501c9e523$feffc1c0$fcff4540$@u-strasbg.fr> <000301c9eed3$c7239d80$556ad880$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090622205616.GD7766@adacore.com> <000301ca3b83$d15fee00$741fca00$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090924175356.GF2112@adacore.com> <003f01ca3d63$607027a0$215076e0$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <003f01ca3d63$607027a0$215076e0$@u-strasbg.fr> 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/msg00771.txt.bz2 > I only wanted to have the fix in the branch, > I don't insist on having the new testsuite files > in 7.0 I wouldn't worry about the testcase files, they do not impact the debugger functionality, so they are not a big risk. The risk is with the patch itself, so I was asking whether there was a way you could test this on x86 before checking in the branch. Normally, testing on one architecture is sufficient, but I'm getting a little (too?) paranoid... In other words, if you commit the patch, go ahead and commit the testcase as well. It doesn't matter whether it's on the branch or not. -- Joel