From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3628 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2013 00:03:46 -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 3567 invoked by uid 89); 3 Jul 2013 00:03:45 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:03:44 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1UuAXu-00062e-Q5 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:03:42 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:03:42 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:03:41 -0700 Message-ID: <51D36A47.7070405@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 00:03:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [PATCH, testsuite] Don't run SREC, IHEX and TEKHEX tests for MIPS N64. References: <51D1AD43.3060904@codesourcery.com> <51D2E59E.7080300@codesourcery.com> <51D2E779.4040209@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <51D2E779.4040209@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 On 07/02/2013 10:45 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > For MIPS we need to load the binary first to be able to tell if we > really have a N64 ABI or not. That is why this check is a bit later in > the code compared to the other checks. > > Does that make sense? Yes, you are right. -- Yao (齐尧)