From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6888 invoked by alias); 18 May 2014 19:05:46 -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 6861 invoked by uid 89); 18 May 2014 19:05:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.4 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; Sun, 18 May 2014 19:05:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4IJ5cd4032380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 18 May 2014 15:05:39 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-107.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.107]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s4IJ5ZAV008029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 18 May 2014 15:05:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 19:05:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Aleksandar Ristovski Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] Move utility functions to common/ Message-ID: <20140518190534.GA19591@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20140319223004.14668.20989.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20140319223014.14668.89536.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00322.txt.bz2 On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:59:48 +0100, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Wednesday, March 19 2014, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > some parts of the former patch have been reimplemented in the meantime by > > other patches so this is only a part of the former cleanup. > > Can't this go in independently? I think they are nice cleanups. I do not think it is right without the later parts of the patchset - code in gdb/common/ should be used by both gdb and gdbserver. Otherwise the code could remain in gdb/ only. Jan