From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21280 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2014 14:05:44 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 21270 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2014 14:05:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:05:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5F2116631; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:05:41 -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 Jj9BZjd5nZyY; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:05:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6301116627; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B1056E10D9; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:05:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Sanimir Agovic Cc: tromey@redhat.com, keven.boell@intel.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] C99 variable length array support Message-ID: <20140226140539.GB4348@adacore.com> References: <1391704056-25246-1-git-send-email-sanimir.agovic@intel.com> <20140209034945.GO5485@adacore.com> <20140210043328.GR5485@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140210043328.GR5485@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00779.txt.bz2 > > The next step for me is to test those changes against the AdaCore > > testsuite. I will try to schedule that early next week. > > Good news! No regression detected with our testsuite on x86_64-linux. > No improvement either, but that is to be expected, since we already > handle the dynamicity via other means (hopefully to be deprecated > soon). Fair warning: ISTM that this patch series is very close to approval, and I would really like to see this patch series go in. So I will start reviewing past discussion an comparing the latest version against past comments. If all comments have been addressed, my plan is to approve the patch. Please let me know if there are any objections. -- Joel