From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2564 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2012 20:42:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 2555 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2012 20:42:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:42:16 +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 q7AKgFFs023932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:42:15 -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 q7AKgEku021219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:42:15 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] bitpos: Minor python changes for bitpos expansion References: <20120805005417.6e8d34d9@spoyarek> <87k3x6adkf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120811002716.61ba0e75@spoyarek> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120811002716.61ba0e75@spoyarek> (Siddhesh Poyarekar's message of "Sat, 11 Aug 2012 00:27:16 +0530") Message-ID: <87mx228ont.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00325.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Siddhesh" == Siddhesh Poyarekar writes: Siddhesh> Thanks, I've pushed the patch with the change you've asked for - sorry Siddhesh> about it too, since you had told me about that function in an earlier Siddhesh> change and I had managed to forget about it. No worries. In case it helps, I don't even remember that happening :-) Tom