From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3696 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 18:43:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 3687 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 18:43:26 -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; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:43:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FIhBKM023084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:43:11 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2FIh9G1000747; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:43:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4F62383D.9010707@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:43:00 -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: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [patch] Add support for ARMv7M devices. References: <4F598611.4020506@eCosCentric.com> <4F5A240C.1010702@codesourcery.com> <4F5A2C12.6000300@eCosCentric.com> <4F5A2FBE.2070201@redhat.com> <4F5C1DCA.5080309@eCosCentric.com> <4F60C1F3.30504@redhat.com> <4F618BA0.6000603@eCosCentric.com> <4F622210.7010904@redhat.com> <4F6235BD.2080000@eCosCentric.com> In-Reply-To: <4F6235BD.2080000@eCosCentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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/msg00565.txt.bz2 On 03/15/2012 06:32 PM, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Let me know if I should commit it. Let's put it in. Just a small nit: On 03/11/2012 03:36 AM, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > +/* For backward-compatibility we allow two 'g' packet lengths with > + the remote protocol depending on whether FPA registers are > + supplied. M-profile targets do not have FPA registers, but some > + stubs already exist in the wild which use a 'g' packet which > + supplies them albeit with dummy values. The packet format which > + includes FPA registers should be considered deprecated for > + M-profile targets. */ Double-space after all periods, not just the last. Thanks! -- Pedro Alves