From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3963 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2014 12:09:32 -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 3952 invoked by uid 89); 29 Dec 2014 12:09:31 -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, 29 Dec 2014 12:09:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1885411628D; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:09:28 -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 I6JSBkTvqugp; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:09:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7203116288; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:09:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 382234100E; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 16:09:24 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Thomas Preud'homme Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Support for value 3 of Tag_ABI_VFP_args ARM attribute Message-ID: <20141229120924.GD2123@adacore.com> References: <000101d02201$e9b4b430$bd1e1c90$@arm.com> <20141228034726.GA2123@adacore.com> <000301d02350$313224b0$93966e10$@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000301d02350$313224b0$93966e10$@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00662.txt.bz2 > > Also, I don't think the cast to (int) are necessary, are they? > > Sigh. Indeed, they aren't. My apologize. I remember adding them after > seeing an error but I cannot reproduce it. So either I compiled with > g++ (why would I?) or the error came from something else in the patch > which I changed as well. Should I post a patch to fix this or can I > commit it as obvious? No worries at all - if you had seen the number of brainless changes I've pushed (and I am not calling your change brainless ;-)), you would feel sorry for me. You can commit that change as obvious, no problem. But, in case we haven't said it before, even obvious changes need to be posted here, with ChangeLog and all. Thank you, -- Joel