From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4715 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2005 02:12:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4696 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2005 02:11:58 -0000 Received: from ausmtp01.au.ibm.com (HELO ausmtp01.au.ibm.com) (202.81.18.186) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:11:58 +0000 Received: from sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh904.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.202]) by ausmtp01.au.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j8T2Dtb8320490 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:14:25 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.243]) by sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j8T2DxCq155468 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:13:59 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8T2AxuR031812 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:10:59 +1000 Received: from [9.181.133.252] ([9.181.133.252]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8T2AsJF031727; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:10:56 +1000 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:12:00 -0000 From: Wu Zhou To: Eli Zaretskii cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Decimal Floating Point support for GDB (Part 1: patch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00285.txt.bz2 Hi Eli, On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > + default: > > + error ("There is no decimal floating point of length %d", len); > > Please make sure all the message strings are in _(). We are planning > to introduce intl support to GDB some day. > Thanks for your comment. I will incoporate this into the next version. Any other comments on this patch? BTW, I have two other questions: 1. If this patch is accepted, do we also need any document? IMO, maybe gdb user manual needed to be updated to reflect this feature. But I am not sure which section? What about gdb internal? Do we need to update that too? 2. As you might know, dfp for gcc is also under development. And my patch depends on the availablity of that? How did gdb handle this kind of situation before? Did we need to wait until dfp is ready for gcc? Thanks and Best Regards - Wu Zhou