From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id ijeHMR7QQmS5eDIAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:04:14 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id B82EF1E221; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=vKTN/vej; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E2DE1E128 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD189385770E for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 18:04:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BD189385770E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1682100252; bh=rXom7f8ee/UawRqAz4civieIvDqBIoQZSAoBvlMsK7s=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=vKTN/vej08CAppdYGPafxM6EeZfbu22baxrzq2VKJJBQQaMUL3/aIzeqjXUAE/FoO hUiiPK8NhH1FEwYGbNbQ203Ws7zqPabdGsHeeRIZdGGdbm10tkv8cfs/8+R1C77fhH rGpvsOhBWuoVherWpLEz3qaNALqM0uAMLPjIvgM4= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2BD3858D20 for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 18:03:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 0B2BD3858D20 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-5-pbMK8m6cPueyuea8ncgy1w-1; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:03:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: pbMK8m6cPueyuea8ncgy1w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18A5A800B35; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 18:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f37-zws-nv (unknown [10.2.16.7]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DDFC1121318; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 18:03:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:03:46 -0700 To: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Cc: Tom de Vries , WANG Rui Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gdb: Fix false match issue in skip_prologue_using_linetable Message-ID: <20230421110346.7ca9b163@f37-zws-nv> In-Reply-To: <1a4148e1-1376-3bc6-e398-4c611922c58f@suse.de> References: <20230418120939.29102-1-tdevries@suse.de> <1a4148e1-1376-3bc6-e398-4c611922c58f@suse.de> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Kevin Buettner Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Hi Tom, On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:15:06 +0200 Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote: > On 4/18/23 14:09, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote: > > Co-Authored-By: WANG Rui (fix, tiny change [1]) > > Co-Authored-By: Tom de Vries (test-case) > > > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html > > I'm not used to deal with these matters, so I'd appreciate some > review/approval on this. Is my copyright status assessment correct, and > did I write it up correctly? I refreshed my memory via the link you provided above. Based on what is written there, I conclude that Wang Rui's change is not legally signficant for copyright purposes. Also, I've looked over the Rui's patch as well as your test case, and it looks good to me. So... Approved-by: Kevin Buettner