From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11732 invoked by alias); 7 May 2014 18:12:30 -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 11720 invoked by uid 89); 7 May 2014 18:12:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 May 2014 18:12:28 +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 s47ICPAJ030567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 7 May 2014 14:12:25 -0400 Received: from redacted.bos.redhat.com ([10.18.17.143]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s47ICNwq032035 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 7 May 2014 14:12:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 18:12:00 -0000 From: Kyle McMartin To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] aarch64: detect atomic sequences like other ll/sc architectures Message-ID: <20140507181223.GU674@redacted.bos.redhat.com> References: <20140424183510.GI7588@redacted.bos.redhat.com> <20140430160450.GE2148@redacted.bos.redhat.com> <20140507135217.GC4063@adacore.com> <20140507151022.GQ674@redacted.bos.redhat.com> <20140507164611.GD4063@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140507164611.GD4063@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 09:46:11AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > AndrewP said that the code is always LE, so why not just use > > > BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE in this case, rather than go through > > > byte_order_for_code? > > > > > > > Seemed sensible to do what aarch64_analyze_prologue did, rather than > > hard code it... I'm happy one way or another though. > > Hmmm, true. It doesn't matter all that much, I think, and yours has > indeed the advantate of consistency. I pushed your patch. > > For future submissions, may I make a request? Would you mind including > the revision log as part of the email when sending your patches? I went > through all versions of the patch that were sent, and couldn't find > a description of the problem. We try to have those in the revision log > to avoid having to re-locate the patches in the mailing-list when > searching for the reasons behind the patch. The nice side-effect of > following this approach is that submitting the patch is just a matter > of "git send-email"-ing it, and for me, pushing the patch is just > a matter of "git am" + "git push" (with a possible update to add > the ChangeLog entries). > Certainly, sorry about that. Will keep this in mind for next time. regards, Kyle