From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 89350 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2019 20:11:47 -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 89341 invoked by uid 89); 11 Sep 2019 20:11:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-13.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:1309 X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:11:46 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AAFAD6D; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:11:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PING][8.3 backport] Adjust i386 registers on SystemTap probes' arguments (PR breakpoints/24541) To: Joel Brobecker , Sergio Durigan Junior Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190714175240.GA23822@adacore.com> <877e7i3vpr.fsf@redhat.com> <2b220c6a-e212-65b0-e6e6-f668602179c6@suse.de> <31f1ccbe-535f-1f69-9ba8-e51a9a8e8a12@suse.de> <87r24wt3ki.fsf@redhat.com> <20190909205316.GA530@adacore.com> From: Tom de Vries Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <62d0f873-f991-6fa4-e533-b81fd6be7220@suse.de> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190909205316.GA530@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 On 09-09-19 22:53, Joel Brobecker wrote: >>>> OK to backport both commits to gdb-8.3-branch? >>> >>> Ping. >> >> I'm the maintainer of the SystemTap/generic probe interfaces, but I'm >> not sure I can give you the green light for you in this case, because >> it's about backporting to a branch. In any case, just to make sure I'm >> clear: this one LGTM. > > Generally speaking, the rule is that a GM needs to approve the backport. > But the nod from the associated maintainer is always a great help. > So thanks a lot, Sergio! > > I looked it over, and this seems safe to have. So the backport is > approved. > Thanks for the review. > One thing that would have helped a bit is if the commits were attached > to the request. It's clearly not a big issue at all, but if they had > been attached, there would have been no mistake possible fo which > commits we are talking about, and looking through them would have been > faster. > Ack, I'll try to remember this for next time. Thanks, - Tom > For the record, I looked at: > 677052f2a5 Make stap-probe.c:stap_parse_register_operand's "regname" an std::string > 7d7571f0c1 Adjust i386 registers on SystemTap probes' arguments (PR breakpoints/24541) >