From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2789 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2014 13:50:33 -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 2779 invoked by uid 89); 14 Nov 2014 13:50:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:50:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAEDoUOS020847 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:50:30 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAEDoS3l015457; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:50:29 -0500 Message-ID: <546608A4.1020905@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:50:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] btrace: add format argument to supports_btrace References: <1405346196-1804-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1405346196-1804-3-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <545A8C5B.3040504@redhat.com> <5466056E.5060202@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 On 11/14/2014 01:47 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >> owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Alves >>> Do you want me to change it in a separate patch? >> >> Hmm, I'm confused -- why a separate patch instead of simply >> adjusting this one? > > Because this chunk will go away. As you pointed out, moving > declarations around is no longer necessary and this change is unrelated. D'oh! If you want to push a fix for that as a separate patch, it's preapproved. Thanks, Pedro Alves