From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1327 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2014 18:14:24 -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 1265 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2014 18:14:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 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, 16 Jan 2014 18:14:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0GIEJ6H007986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:14:20 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s0GIEI1n013401; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:14:18 -0500 Message-ID: <52D82179.5020203@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:14:00 -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: Simon Marchi , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [OB PATCH] Fix uninitialized type_flags variable References: <52D7EECF.5020904@ericsson.com> <52D80AF2.5010605@redhat.com> <52D81E9F.8020106@ericsson.com> <87mwivn6b3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87mwivn6b3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00636.txt.bz2 On 01/16/2014 06:13 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > > Simon> Oh ok, thanks for the clarification. It wasn't very clear what the > Simon> contract of the function was. > > A gdbarch.sh patch to clarify this would be welcome :) What Tromey said. :-) -- Pedro Alves