From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22145 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2011 11:10:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 22129 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2011 11:10:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:10:05 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1R9EVA-00006e-QN from pedro_alves@mentor.com ; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:10:05 -0700 Received: from scottsdale.localnet ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:10:03 +0100 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PR 9514] Fixing parse error for "pointer to a function pointer" Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.7.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Abhijit Halder References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201109291210.01022.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-09/txt/msg00521.txt.bz2 On Thursday 29 September 2011 11:44:04, Abhijit Halder wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Abhijit Halder > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The current patch is to fix the issue defined in PR 9514. There's no > > regression. Please review this. > > > > Thanks, > > Abhijit Halder > > > > Oops! The ChangeLog is incorrect. Correcting the same. Please always post both ChangeLog and patch together. It's practically 0 work to repost the whole thing instead of just a part, while having all pieces together is easier for review, as it avoids the reviewer, not being as familiar with the patches as you, having to hunt for the pieces. Also, please always try to give explanations of what was wrong in the current code, and how you're fixing the problem. If you found a problem with an earlier patch attempt, it's quite useful to know why that earlier patch didn't work. If a reviewer will need to try out a patch and go through the same debug/thought process you had to go throught when writting the patch, then it's more likely a patch will go by unreviewed for longer. In a nutshell, your job is to make it easy to get an OK. -- Pedro Alves