From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27907 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2014 12:49:21 -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 27897 invoked by uid 89); 15 Dec 2014 12:49:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 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; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:49:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C177B1164B4; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:49:18 -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 Fr4ZkcWLubx6; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:49:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90881163BE; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:49:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F0D3640164; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 07:49:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Chen Gang Cc: Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb/hppa-tdep.c: Fix logical working flow issues and check additional store instructions Message-ID: <20141215124918.GV5457@adacore.com> References: <548D93E4.2000405@gmail.com> <20141214193513.GT5457@adacore.com> <548E65B5.7040606@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <548E65B5.7040606@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00381.txt.bz2 > Excuse me, I have no related test environments for parisc either. Maybe > I can try to construct the related virtual environments for it, but I am > still not quite sure whether it is enough. > > Can we change to another way for it: > > - try to keep the original code no touch. > > - only fix the related typo issues according to the related documents, > do not add new features (e.g. do not check stby, stbdy, stwa, stda, > only give the related comments for them). > > - let it pass compiling. > > Or, can we find related members in our gdb mailing list which has parisc > environments? I think finding people who can test your change would be ideal, but is not required. I was just making it clear what my review could bring, or rather not bring. I think it's fine to increase the scope of the routine as you've been doing, as I think the risk of disturbing currently supported instructions is small. I am curious - and you do not have to reply if you do not want to -, how did you get involved in this change? If you have no testing environment, it probably means you're not using the code. What made you decide to try to fix it? -- Joel