From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10284 invoked by alias); 17 May 2012 19:32:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 10275 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2012 19:32:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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, 17 May 2012 19:32:13 +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 q4HJWD9S010372 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:32:13 -0400 Received: from mesquite.lan ([10.3.113.7]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4HJWAJI021819 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:32:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 19:32:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [SH] regs command Message-ID: <20120517123210.3439d1ca@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <87pqa4qbzp.fsf@schwinge.name> References: <87ehqkrzzw.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120516142633.GV10253@adacore.com> <87zk98qe8t.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120516165730.GY10253@adacore.com> <87pqa4qbzp.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: 2012-05/txt/msg00665.txt.bz2 On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:20:10 +0200 Thomas Schwinge wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:57:30 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > Sounds good, and thusly implemented, OK to commit? > > > > I have only skimmed the patch for now. Perhaps Kevin would like > > to look at the purely sh-related changes. They look good to me, > > but I don't know if you might have missed something. > > Sure, we can wait. The sh specific changes are okay with me. In particular, I'm comfortable with the idea of deprecating the sh-specific "regs" command. Make sure that you've addressed all of the concerns raised by others in this thread though. Kevin