From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-99912-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30127 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2013 17:49:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 30077 invoked by uid 89); 26 Mar 2013 17:49:24 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from arjuna.pair.com (HELO arjuna.pair.com) (209.68.5.131)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with SMTP; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:49:22 +0000
Received: (qmail 31511 invoked by uid 3006); 26 Mar 2013 17:49:20 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1)  by localhost with SMTP; 26 Mar 2013 17:49:20 -0000
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:16:00 -0000
From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com>
To: Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Simulator dv-sockser.o patch testing
In-Reply-To: <5151A8B4.8000201@oarcorp.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.02.1303261343410.16035@arjuna.pair.com>
References: <514FB8F2.9060702@oarcorp.com> <alpine.BSF.2.02.1303252303190.97353@arjuna.pair.com> <alpine.BSF.2.02.1303252318080.4293@arjuna.pair.com> <5151A8B4.8000201@oarcorp.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (BSF 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00977.txt.bz2

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 3/25/2013 10:22 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > That is, it's the only sim where the default config is "no": "no
> > > hardware enabled by default".  If that number *decreases* due to
> > > a patch supposed to *enable* things, the patch seems wrong.
> > Oops: it's the number of *untested* cases that decrease when
> > enabling default-disabled hardware (yes, I do test and account
> > for that in the test-suite)... *blush*
> >
> > So ignore my previous post while I remove my foot from my mouth.
> It is really complicated and a lot of details. No apology needed. :)
>
> Does Mike's patch look ok based upon my testing?

Dunno, there was a bit of churn there and it wasn't clear what
the intent was, but as Mike has the required rights no review is
required AFAIK.

brgds, H-P