From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id mJXPFtWGZWhmSCkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2025 15:21:57 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5B0FF1E11E; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:21:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.0 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 030F01E0C2 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:21:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02943852FD4 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 19:21:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A02943852FD4 Received: from angie.orcam.me.uk (angie.orcam.me.uk [IPv6:2001:4190:8020::34]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C97A8385782C for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 19:21:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C97A8385782C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orcam.me.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=orcam.me.uk ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org C97A8385782C Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2001:4190:8020::34 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1751484087; cv=none; b=BDkIHz+BVt7G9Pi7fcqt1NS2Cw/1vzp8iEnHoMOK05LrMbj++7RnPUVF4md48kv5eV/HX41jdpdAvM3pZAujsf1NpXrgGtvbWO+TjkTZOwtG0OUJa+4MI870KkVzXuzSdheAxhwPrlGI7ZnWmecGzKzF25Ezd/Ir3/Cv04NVgmc= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1751484087; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8aJc47IJGdhyAL8wZRT+81/nnKDFs2XlPMkk96oInug=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=VBpF1CQyPLjc/aO5mVuHn+joM+wJ28eaZhT1IQe/ErN/MTQUP9RliBEHOX/g/j31tA3jgKi+oXKodYWHdI8pr4TzsVBT3h1pcnibyEM83KqV7NcgAiSu2PGNgRmZSio7LoQHEPrC0+G7nTf993j5tRf/ONsZBAzs/1yMb5+BoyU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C97A8385782C Received: by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3922092009C; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 21:21:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by angie.orcam.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D3492009B; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 20:21:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 20:21:26 +0100 (BST) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Simon Marchi cc: Yodel Eldar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb/alpha: Add target description support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20250526151219.399450-1-yodel.eldar@gmail.com> <20250526151219.399450-2-yodel.eldar@gmail.com> <55cdf445-fee8-4e70-99c0-6d42eb68cd7d@simark.ca> <9feb7348-1dde-40cc-b21d-97671b8b3e39@gmail.com> <3ef4c598-28d8-4c66-844d-58e5629415ab@gmail.com> <40cede5f-1b8c-4eb9-b702-3805499efbf5@gmail.com> <869aca3b-78ab-4ec6-af23-56394c040d75@simark.ca> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On Wed, 2 Jul 2025, Simon Marchi wrote: > >> >From my non-Alpha-expert point of view, the series LGTM, so I'm tempted > >> to approve it. Maciej, did you have some comments on the code? Does it > >> look good to you? > > > > I've skimmed over now and found one minor formatting nit only, which I do > > hope you can address as you push this change. Otherwise if there turns > > out indeed anything wrong with the code later on, it can be dealt with as > > required. I'm not prepared right now for any further verification of this > > target. > > I didn't fix any formatting problem other than the one pointed out by > Eli. What did you find? Or else, feel free to fix it by yourself with > an obvious patch. Just a place asking for a new line for legibility reasons. If you've already pushed the change, then I can apply a follow-up update myself. Maciej