From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32661 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2014 14:16:11 -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 32649 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jul 2014 14:16:10 -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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:16:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6FEG38S020895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:16:04 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6FEG1LS000855; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:16:02 -0400 Message-ID: <53C537A1.9080802@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:38:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tweak gdb.trace/tfile.c for thumb mode References: <1404100222-2312-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <53BD5710.5040105@redhat.com> <53BDEBD8.5030201@codesourcery.com> <53C52622.3000405@redhat.com> <53C53319.7090001@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <53C53319.7090001@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00378.txt.bz2 Thanks Yao, On 07/15/2014 02:56 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > Make sure I understand you correctly, you fixed warnings on mingw32 but > didn't run the test on mingw32, did you? Correct, I did not run the test on mingw32, nor on Thumb, as I don't have setups for that. As it passes cleanly on F20, both -m64 and -m32, and now builds without warnings on mingw32, so I'm positive I can't have broken things that much. :-) Do you want to test it first, or shall we push it in now, and it gets coverage next time it percolates to your setups through mainline? Thanks, -- Pedro Alves