From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9045 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2013 21:12:10 -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 9017 invoked by uid 89); 21 Nov 2013 21:12:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:12:08 +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 rALLBwux027477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:11:59 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-124.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.124]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rALLBvL3022309 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:11:58 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] set/show code-cache References: <1384996594-20865-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1384996594-20865-3-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <528D781A.7070909@codesourcery.com> <871u29h7oa.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:49:50 -0800") Message-ID: <87k3g1foiq.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: 2013-11/txt/msg00660.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Tom> It seems unusual to have "ON" in upper case. Doug> cut-n-paste from the stack-cache case. Doug> I forget what the rules are here. Doug> Do we require fixing the stack-cache case first? I don't know if we have a rule. I generally try not to require people to fix existing problems. My view is that patch submitters aren't responsible for the context; and that if it matters that much to me, I can fix it myself. (On occasion I may ask nicely though...) But, I think it's ok to require that new bad cases not go in, as a general rule. Tom