From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3694 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2004 19:09:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3687 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2004 19:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2004 19:09:15 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.146.111]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.4-GR) with ESMTP id CLN86997; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:08:51 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:09:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Jeff Johnston Message-Id: <2719-Tue10Feb2004210935+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <40292337.3090907@redhat.com> (message from Jeff Johnston on Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:30:15 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFA]: Patch for ia64-tdep.c to cross-compile Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <40282283.4090904@redhat.com> <20040210025527.GA16979@nevyn.them.org> <40292337.3090907@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:30:15 -0500 > From: Jeff Johnston > > > > If this is an obvious patch, shouldn't we have some coding rule > > somewhere to cover it? It certainly isn't obvious out of the GDB > > context, i.e. not a standard coding practice. > > Eli, > > Do you want me to hold off on checking this in or do you just wish to discuss > whether such a patch should be marked as obvious in the future? I don't think you need to hold off; sorry that I wasn't more clear. What I wanted to discuss is whether we need to put some text somewhere that includes the use of paddr* functions in the GDB coding standards. Then it would be clear that fixing any deviation from that falls under the obvious fix rule.