From: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb/hppa-tdep.c: Fix logical working flow issues and check additional store instructions
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:24:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <548EEF0E.3000307@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141215124918.GV5457@adacore.com>
On 12/15/2014 08:49 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> Excuse me, I have no related test environments for parisc either. Maybe
>> I can try to construct the related virtual environments for it, but I am
>> still not quite sure whether it is enough.
>>
>> Can we change to another way for it:
>>
>> - try to keep the original code no touch.
>>
>> - only fix the related typo issues according to the related documents,
>> do not add new features (e.g. do not check stby, stbdy, stwa, stda,
>> only give the related comments for them).
>>
>> - let it pass compiling.
>>
>> Or, can we find related members in our gdb mailing list which has parisc
>> environments?
>
> I think finding people who can test your change would be ideal,
> but is not required. I was just making it clear what my review
> could bring, or rather not bring. I think it's fine to increase
> the scope of the routine as you've been doing, as I think the risk
> of disturbing currently supported instructions is small.
>
OK, thanks.
> I am curious - and you do not have to reply if you do not want to -,
> how did you get involved in this change? If you have no testing
> environment, it probably means you're not using the code. What
> made you decide to try to fix it?
>
When I compiling binutils, and find the compiler warning, then try to
fix it with other members. I have no environments, not familiar with
parisc, no enough time resources ... but I should still try my best.
Originally, I worked for coredump analysing (kdb for Linux kernel, gdb
for user mode C++ program) -- which have no test environments, either
not familiar many things, but the end time point is sensitive ...
At present, after I really touch the open source in details, I know:
- Most of persons and companies (include me) have already get benefit
from open source, especially fundamental software (e.g. binutils,
gdb), but most of them do not contribute back to open source.
- But open source still continue, and still benefit to most of persons
and companies.
- What I have done is just only try to contribute back to open source.
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
Open share and attitude like air water and life which God blessed
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-15 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-14 13:36 Chen Gang
2014-12-14 19:35 ` Joel Brobecker
2014-12-15 4:31 ` Chen Gang
2014-12-15 12:49 ` Joel Brobecker
2014-12-15 14:24 ` Chen Gang [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=548EEF0E.3000307@gmail.com \
--to=gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=schwab@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox