From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19765 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2012 23:20:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 19757 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2012 23:20:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:20:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1KNKVlc006496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:20:34 -0500 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn-113-100.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.100]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1KNKUCk004190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:20:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:25:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [SH] Prologue skipping if there is none Message-ID: <20120220162029.2082b6a1@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <87mx8da3b9.fsf@schwinge.name> References: <87pqdgciho.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120215075413.1313f7fa@mesquite.lan> <20120215165907.33f2e9a6@mesquite.lan> <8739aad9il.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120216182544.36b41a1b@mesquite.lan> <87mx8da3b9.fsf@schwinge.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2 Hi Thomas, On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:15:54 +0100 Thomas Schwinge wrote: > So, we do seem to agree that something like the patch I posted initially > (and as it is incorporated in a similar fashion in your patch, too) does > already move us forward; is it reasonable that we commit that one now, > and then continue to look on how to further improve the situation based > on your patch? This will let us point out more easily which are the > additional cases your patch improves/regresses on. (I'd offer to port > your patch over to the new baseline, if you want me to.) Yeah, as a first step, I think it makes sense for you to commit the patch that you came up with. Kevin