From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32584 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2013 16:53:59 -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 32559 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2013 16:53:58 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:53:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6PGrodi019264 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:53:50 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6PGrnT1025812; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:53:49 -0400 Message-ID: <51F1581D.4080008@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:53:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: don't call add_target for thread_db_ops References: <1372783053-14925-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <51D3E4CB.3060801@redhat.com> <87ehamwwtq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51F13898.2050700@redhat.com> <87ppu6vbxx.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87ppu6vbxx.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00624.txt.bz2 On 07/25/2013 05:31 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Pedro> Thanks. Do you plan on doing the same to the remaining > Pedro> thread_stratum targets? If not, I'll do it at some point. > Pedro> I'd prefer not leaving the incomplete transition in > Pedro> place; it's bound to confuse someone later on. I wouldn't > Pedro> worry much if an affected target goes untested. > > I wasn't planning to, but my main concern was the testing; I will write > the patch today. Thanks! -- Pedro Alves