From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16031 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2011 15:55:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 16021 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2011 15:55:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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, 18 Nov 2011 15:55:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97592BC142; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:55:24 -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 ptz-ymvf7a-A; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF972BB5CA; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:55:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 112A9145615; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:55:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Hector Oron , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu , yoshii.takashi@renesas.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Renesas SH (sh4) native support Message-ID: <20111118155522.GD2703@adacore.com> References: <20111117232006.GA22252@enorme.TCLDOMAIN.OFFICE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00501.txt.bz2 > I glanced through the patch a little. It had the usual formatting > issues, and was lacking ChangeLog entries, but otherwise nothing stood > out for me. The biggest issue I have besides copyright assignment (from the original author, right?) is the fact that it hasn't been tested. If we could involve the author a bit, and ask him to rebase the patch against HEAD, and test it a bit, at least we could have a little bit of confidence. I've also spotted the following: +#include +#include +#include +#include +#include + +#include which is a big no-no in a -tdep file. Tdep files should be compilable on any host. I haven't been able to review the file much beyond that... -- Joel