From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19155 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2013 10:15:22 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 19143 invoked by uid 89); 18 Apr 2013 10:15:22 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:15:19 +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 r3IAFHj1009799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:15:17 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3IAFFM9025938; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:15:16 -0400 Message-ID: <516FC7B3.4050502@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:43:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladimir Kargov CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5BPATCH=5D_Fix_the_x87_FP_re?= =?windows-1252?Q?gister_printout_by_=93info_float=94=2E?= References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00565.txt.bz2 On 04/18/2013 01:51 AM, Vladimir Kargov wrote: > Another way to fix this would be to replace the type in the definition > of variable "raw" from "char" to "gdb_char" which is currently defined > as "unsigned char", You must have meant gdb_byte. Actually, this (not checked in yet) series does that: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-04/msg00327.html Specifically this patch: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-04/msg00328.html > but I couldn't find any signs in the code that > this typedef wouldn't be changed in the future to something else. Could you write a test case? That'd prevent a regression here going unnoticed. -- Pedro Alves