From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30778 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 04:44:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 30763 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 04:44:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f214.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f214.google.com) (209.85.218.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:44:30 +0000 Received: by bwz6 with SMTP id 6so1863950bwz.13 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.49.78 with SMTP id u14mr2025937bkf.147.1268887466899; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.99] (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l1sm33779284bkl.2.2010.03.17.21.44.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BA1B3F3.7080107@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:44:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, vladimir@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [patch] Re: -data-list-register-names regression? References: <201003171345.44000.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <201003172138.o2HLcOBY021097@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <20100317223740.GP9310@caradoc.them.org> <20100317225950.GH3830@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20100317225950.GH3830@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00644.txt.bz2 On 17/03/2010 22:59, Joel Brobecker wrote: >>> Tested on powerpc-linux. Thoughts on whether we should this? >> I like this patch, and think we should use it. The IDE should be >> re-fetching the register names, but we don't need to be mean about it :-) > > Ditto. Do we want it for 7.1? It would be helpful, there's a major Eclipse release coming up and there might not be much time for 7.1.1 (or 7.2) before then. It would be good if the 7.1+Eclipse combination could get some solid testing before the launch date in June. cheers, DaveK