From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28729 invoked by alias); 15 May 2012 10:02:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 28716 invoked by uid 22791); 15 May 2012 10:02:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,MAY_BE_FORGED,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; Tue, 15 May 2012 10:02:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4FA2WCa010070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 06:02:32 -0400 Received: from spoyarek (dhcp233-8.pnq.redhat.com [10.65.223.8] (may be forged)) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4FA2U0F026853; Tue, 15 May 2012 06:02:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:02:00 -0000 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: ping: [PATCH v2] Expand bitpos and type.length to LONGEST and ULONGEST Message-ID: <20120515153306.72c1a464@spoyarek> In-Reply-To: <20120515094854.GA7020@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120220132724.GB4753@spoyarek.pnq.redhat.com> <20120221210235.GA26897@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120504183858.67d416b7@spoyarek> <20120515151612.5b5fac87@spoyarek> <20120515094854.GA7020@host2.jankratochvil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00558.txt.bz2 On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:48:54 +0200, Jan wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:46:12 +0200, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > Ping? > > I am already working on it, it is very long. BTW it needs one chunk > rebase to HEAD and there is also one small pulongest issue - build > failure - on 32-bit hosts. But otherwise I do not have other results > yet. > > I expect you were checking it by splint again, I have not run it yet > for this patch. > Thanks, yes I did check this using splint, specifically the diff with and without this patch. -- Siddhesh