From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12231 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2013 13:49:40 -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 12220 invoked by uid 89); 25 Apr 2013 13:49:40 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:49:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3PDna8v016000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:49:37 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3PDnWMR027074 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:49:32 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: "Tedeschi\, Walfred" Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" , "drow\@false.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix display of structures/bitfields in register description. References: <1366812163-27865-1-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <87wqrrn7ki.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Walfred Tedeschi's message of "Thu, 25 Apr 2013 07:55:06 +0000") Message-ID: <87fvyek9ec.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: 2013-04/txt/msg00781.txt.bz2 Walfred> Copyrights: Walfred> I took a look on several xml files and all of them had the same Walfred> copyright I have used. Though, would you recommend to use the Walfred> common GPL header? I don't know why the other .xml files have this other header. However, seeing as the new file is in the test suite, I think the plain GPL comment is preferable. Tom