From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17506 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2015 09:47:23 -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 17493 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2015 09:47:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.109) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:47:21 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:47:18 -0000 Received: from d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.15) by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.143) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:47:17 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F9F1B0805F for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:47:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t099lGHd44957794 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 09:47:16 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t099lFET013845 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 02:47:15 -0700 Received: from br87z6lw.de.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-212-115.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.212.115]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id t099lEfR013798; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 02:47:14 -0700 From: Andreas Arnez To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [testsuite patch] for: [PATCH] [PR corefiles/17808] i386: Fix internal error when prstatus in core file is too big References: <874ms18cyz.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <20150108164327.GA29029@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:47:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20150108164327.GA29029@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:43:27 +0100") Message-ID: <87zj9s70bh.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15010909-0013-0000-0000-00000289D13E X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 08 2015, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:16:20 +0100, Andreas Arnez wrote: >> Note that this behavior deviates from the default policy: In general, if >> some future kernel adds new registers to a register set, then a GDB >> unaware of this extension would read the known subset and just ignore >> the unknown bytes. > > This patch is about 'assert' vs. 'if' so I find this paragraph outside of the > topic of this thread/regression. Right, it seems a bit off-topic. What I really mean is that "this behavior *still* deviates from the default policy", and I just wanted to make sure that we all agree to that. Anyway, I will remove this paragraph from the commit message. Any other comments? After adjusting the commit message, is the patch then OK to apply?