From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27243 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2004 16:43:33 -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 27229 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2004 16:43:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Nov 2004 16:43:32 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iA1GhVCl022930; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:43:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iA1GhUr02878; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:43:30 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BE8129D8C; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:43:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41866793.1070102@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:43:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" , Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch to support AMD64 Solaris 10 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 Joseph, Mark, GDB's acceptance criteria for patches such as this is pretty clear: - (C) assignment tick - coding standard just run it through ./gdb_indent.sh - deprecation oops - ./gdb_ari.sh -Wari to flag other looming coding problems This is often easiest after the event. The only thing really blocking this patch is ``deprecation''. And there, the same patch minus the TM file would be acceptable (such a GDB would even build and to a point work) (notice how test results are not one of the acceptance criteria ;-). Joseph, can you submit an up-to-date patch _minus_ the TM file I'll approve it? By getting that committed we can get the bulk of the patch off the table. Then we can follow up with smaller patches addressing each of the remaining problems. First with the missing multi-arch macros, and second with any concerns with *-nat files. Does that sound reasonable? Andrew