From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2738 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2012 16:06:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 2722 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2012 16:06:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:05:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q29G5kPb001121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:05:46 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q29G5jsw014579; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:05:45 -0500 Message-ID: <4F5A2A58.2070400@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:06:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Larmour CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [patch] Add support for ARMv7M devices. References: <4F598611.4020506@eCosCentric.com> <4F59ED15.1030109@redhat.com> <4F5A2747.8070809@eCosCentric.com> In-Reply-To: <4F5A2747.8070809@eCosCentric.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: 2012-03/txt/msg00335.txt.bz2 On 03/09/2012 03:52 PM, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > On 09/03/12 11:44, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 03/09/2012 04:24 AM, Jonathan Larmour wrote: >> I support this. I wrote essentially the same without being aware of >> your patch: . >> >> Wish I had seen yours before that. >> >> If there are no other comments in a week or so, I say put this in. > > I have noticed one slight practical difference with your patch... Mine used: > + > > whereas yours enumerates all the FPA registers, but with the name set to > "", which is better - I hadn't been aware of that property of not showing > a reg if the name is empty. Ah, yes. > >> On 03/09/2012 04:24 AM, Jonathan Larmour wrote: >>> } >>> + else >>> + is_m = 0; >>> >> >> I think this is unnecessary though. The variable is initialized to 0. > > True. I thought I needed to reset it if it got set further up, but now I > see that couldn't happen ( because !tdesc_has_registers in that case) > > So perhaps should we just go with your version of the patch after all? > It's effectively identical other than the above FPA name improvement. I suppose so. Your patch predates mine, so it'll be fair to put your name in the ChangeLog, like: 2012-03-09 Jonathan Larmour Pedro Alves Can you do that and repost the final patch? Feel free to adjust comments and such if you prefer. Then if there are no further comments, we can check it in. -- Pedro Alves