From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 35543 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2016 19:26:34 -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 35530 invoked by uid 89); 18 Feb 2016 19:26:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: xyzzy.0x04.net Received: from xyzzy.0x04.net (HELO xyzzy.0x04.net) (109.74.193.254) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:26:33 +0000 Received: from hogfather.0x04.net (89-65-66-135.dynamic.chello.pl [89.65.66.135]) by xyzzy.0x04.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43CB93FE37; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:27:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.43.80] (public-gprs363788.centertel.pl [37.47.52.77]) by hogfather.0x04.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BBED58008A; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:26:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Determine the iteration count based on wallclock instead of user+system time. To: Ulrich Weigand References: <20160218185645.987626BEA@oc7340732750.ibm.com> Cc: Wei-cheng Wang , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: =?UTF-8?Q?Marcin_Ko=c5=9bcielnicki?= Message-ID: <56C61AE5.4030308@0x04.net> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 19:26:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160218185645.987626BEA@oc7340732750.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00572.txt.bz2 On 18/02/16 19:56, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >> This patch has been accepted half a year ago, and the author has >> disappeared. It fixes the same underlying issue as my patch at >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-01/msg00716.html . Since >> this patch seems to be a smarter fix, I'd like to abandon mine, and go >> with that one instead. I've just checked it - works just fine and fixes >> the problem on s390{,x}-ibm-linux-gnu, no regressions on >> x86_64-unknown-linx-gnu. >> >> OK to push? > > This is OK. > > Thanks, > Ulrich > Thanks, pushed.