From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7105 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2015 18:53:55 -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 7093 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jan 2015 18:53:54 -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; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:53:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD3B1163B6; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:53:50 -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 wgs7fKDr6MtH; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:53:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759371163B4; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:53:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 188B348E8B; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 22:53:42 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:53:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Wei-cheng Wang , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v4] Process record support for PowerPC Message-ID: <20150117185342.GA10419@adacore.com> References: <201501171146.t0HBktpk008932@d03av02.boulder.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201501171146.t0HBktpk008932@d03av02.boulder.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00499.txt.bz2 > Excellent! Please go ahead and commit those patches to mainline. > > Unfortunately, in the meantime GDB 7.9 has already branched. It would > be really good to have those patches in the branch as well. > > Joel, given that the patches would have been ready before the branch > date, except for the delay to get the FSF assignment in place, would > it be OK with you to backport the patch set to the branch as well? > > The patch set does not touch non-PowerPC code at all, and even within > PowerPC code, there should be only minimal effect unless you're actually > using the process record feature. Sure, OK, especially since you are saying impact should be minimal. -- Joel