From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32576 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2013 20:23:26 -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 32563 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2013 20:23:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:23:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBJKNLWx001140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:23:22 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBJKNJDU007467; Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:23:19 -0500 Message-ID: <52B355B6.6030009@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:23:00 -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: Markus Metzger CC: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/29] record-btrace: reverse References: <1387471499-29444-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1387471499-29444-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00806.txt.bz2 On 12/19/2013 04:44 PM, Markus Metzger wrote: > This is a bigger update addressing Pedro's feedback. Thank you! I read the series and sent a few comments. Patches I didn't comment on looked fine to me. (There were a couple things here and there I didn't see addressed that I think we might be able to a little cleaner around the unavailable stack frames handling, but I didn't re-comment on those on purpose, in the interest of moving forward. Looking forward to have this in.) -- Pedro Alves