From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1748 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2012 11:09:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 1738 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Feb 2012 11:09:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:09:03 +0000 Received: from nat-dem.mentorg.com ([195.212.93.2] helo=eu2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1S0t1J-0005aP-UA from Thomas_Schwinge@mentor.com ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:09:02 -0800 Received: from feldtkeller.schwinge.homeip.net ([172.30.64.161]) by eu2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:09:00 +0100 From: Thomas Schwinge To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kaz Kojima Subject: Re: Simulator testing for sh and sh64 In-Reply-To: <20120223154846.3ef01a10@mesquite.lan> References: <87pqdgciho.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120215075413.1313f7fa@mesquite.lan> <20120215165907.33f2e9a6@mesquite.lan> <8739aad9il.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120216182544.36b41a1b@mesquite.lan> <87zkca9azw.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120222093929.7e86fba2@mesquite.lan> <87wr7e8y60.fsf@schwinge.name> <87obsp8h41.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120223154846.3ef01a10@mesquite.lan> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9-101-g81dad07 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87vcmw7akb.fsf@schwinge.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00538.txt.bz2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1229 Hi! On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:48:46 -0700, Kevin Buettner wrot= e: > On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:49:50 +0100 > Thomas Schwinge wrote: >=20 > > Anyway, the patch for sh-tdep that I posted in > > (at the en= d) > > also applies to sh64-tdep -- shall I commit the equivalent sh64-tdep > > change without any testsuite testing, or let it bit-rot some more? > With regard to sh64-tdep.c... Are you able to do any testing at all > to make sure that your patch basically works for sh64? If you're > able to get partial results with the other changes that you've made, > I think that's good enough. Even hand testing on something like > the gdb.base/break.exp test case would be okay. Not really, I'm afraid. > So... if you're able to test it at all so that you know it basically > works, then it can go in. If not, I'd prefer to have sh64-tdep.c left > in its current state until you are able to do some testing. OK. Is there any actual interest (other than ``nice to have'') in getting sh64 back into a functional state, given that its GDB port has very much been broken for several years already? Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Thomas --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-length: 489 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPR2/FAAoJENuKOtuXzphJVkYH/R0rKNoFwXs/D9qAnNN8vF/I pm1pqYgKVpAefGdgjHfnTX8SEAEmGxvfzV7+xtprVUyP8VGLE1sUOSa6ods794G8 Vb5DzKL/hWC90Y9WqQToyRej6Xzo1EQeIFldUS7/FdbVxnhiiSRUz2XGFlvfxG1c HdUOj32WlaOENuoGGfwEBDuAxCnhRbYOo0wZgdgBRvBEgB8adVOaHXrSRu0+8q3K my4R3t7xnKGY+6dGcwL8Sy8wykheU2718UtUgndVQH/hWXYdeoLaC+eHGwKL0Soj jmqO/IeZzcq4K8BpRA0HlJEitc1L6GFny1lOpI/R4h3pY1Hq8Z+3gMXiLsLlj84= =uYB4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--