Re: [RFC] Is this kind of patch welcomed?

[Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>]

OK.  Followed is the revised patch: another typo is fixed and changlog
entry added. 

2005-05-25  Wu Zhou  <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>

	* remote.c: Fix two comment typos

Index: remote.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/remote.c,v
retrieving revision 1.190
diff -c -p -r1.190 remote.c
*** remote.c	16 May 2005 16:36:24 -0000	1.190
--- remote.c	25 May 2005 02:11:20 -0000
*************** struct gdb_ext_thread_info
*** 1114,1120 ****
      int active;			/* Has state interesting to GDB? 
  				   regs, stack.  */
      char display[256];		/* Brief state display, name, 
! 				   blocked/syspended.  */
      char shortname[32];		/* To be used to name threads.  */
      char more_display[256];	/* Long info, statistics, queue depth, 
  				   whatever.  */
--- 1114,1120 ----
      int active;			/* Has state interesting to GDB? 
  				   regs, stack.  */
      char display[256];		/* Brief state display, name, 
! 				   blocked/suspended.  */
      char shortname[32];		/* To be used to name threads.  */
      char more_display[256];	/* Long info, statistics, queue depth, 
  				   whatever.  */
*************** remote_unpack_thread_info_response (char
*** 1489,1495 ****
    int mask, length;
    unsigned int tag;
    threadref ref;
!   char *limit = pkt + (rs->remote_packet_size);	/* plausable parsing limit */
    int retval = 1;
  
    /* info->threadid = 0; FIXME: implement zero_threadref.  */
--- 1489,1495 ----
    int mask, length;
    unsigned int tag;
    threadref ref;
!   char *limit = pkt + (rs->remote_packet_size);	/* plausible parsing limit */
    int retval = 1;
  
    /* info->threadid = 0; FIXME: implement zero_threadref.  */


On Tue, 24 May 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:13:32AM -0700, Wu Zhou wrote:
> > This is to fix a typo in remote.c, found while I am reading the 
> > source code.  Is this kind of patch welcomed?  If it is, should 
> > I add a changelog entry as well?  If not, please ignore it. 
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> The patch is fine - but yes, it does need a changelog entry.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery, LLC
> 
>