From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22197 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2013 15:13:54 -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 22187 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jul 2013 15:13:53 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:13:53 +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 r6UFDiRi025868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:13:44 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-128.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.128]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6UFDh5I031268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:13:44 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: "Metzger\, Markus T" Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] add target method delegation References: <1375116324-32092-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1375116324-32092-3-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <8761vsm7ex.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Markus T. Metzger's message of "Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:08:28 +0000") Message-ID: <871u6gm66w.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00770.txt.bz2 Tom> I considered this, but the difficulty is that I can't test, or even Tom> compile, a reasonable subset of the changes. Markus> Afaik, Sanimir wanted to look into using the gcc compile farm. Yeah. That has decent arch coverage, though not complete. I will give it a try. Maybe there are enough machines. Markus> I admit that I also changed target specific code that I was not able Markus> to compile and test. It's unavoidable at times. Being the loosie-goosie person I am, I tend to think we should just push forward on such changes and let the breakage flush out obsolete ports. But I assume I'm less conservative than the median gdb maintainer. Tom