From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13082 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2012 22:49:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 13074 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2012 22:49:06 -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; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:48:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1NMmlS1022722 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:48:48 -0500 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn-113-100.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.100]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1NMmldx027454 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:48:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:53:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Simulator testing for sh and sh64 Message-ID: <20120223154846.3ef01a10@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <87obsp8h41.fsf@schwinge.name> References: <87pqdgciho.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120215075413.1313f7fa@mesquite.lan> <20120215165907.33f2e9a6@mesquite.lan> <8739aad9il.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120216182544.36b41a1b@mesquite.lan> <87zkca9azw.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120222093929.7e86fba2@mesquite.lan> <87wr7e8y60.fsf@schwinge.name> <87obsp8h41.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/msg00526.txt.bz2 On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:49:50 +0100 Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Anyway, the patch for sh-tdep that I posted in > (at the end) > also applies to sh64-tdep -- shall I commit the equivalent sh64-tdep > change without any testsuite testing, or let it bit-rot some more? I would like you to apply that patch to sh-tdep.c. (So consider that patch approved for sh-tdep.c.) I'd also like to see some version of my patch go in if it makes sense. But I'd like to see your patch applied as a first step. (I sent a similar reply on Monday.) With regard to sh64-tdep.c... Are you able to do any testing at all to make sure that your patch basically works for sh64? If you're able to get partial results with the other changes that you've made, I think that's good enough. Even hand testing on something like the gdb.base/break.exp test case would be okay. So... if you're able to test it at all so that you know it basically works, then it can go in. If not, I'd prefer to have sh64-tdep.c left in its current state until you are able to do some testing. Kevin