From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 47383 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2018 16:57:34 -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 47368 invoked by uid 89); 27 Nov 2018 16:57:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:500 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:57:32 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4985E3DE0A; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74815600C8; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:57:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/3] gdb/regcache: When saving, ignore registers that can't be read To: Andrew Burgess References: <1fdb87a3328423d35fda3d45bdf54fa11bb8d82c.1543317060.git.andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <130a11fc-540f-6393-7665-f3f047561887@redhat.com> <20181127153008.GG2834@embecosm.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Simon Marchi From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181127153008.GG2834@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg00460.txt.bz2 On 11/27/2018 03:30 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to review this patch. > > Just wanted to confirm that (subject to review) the above feedback > doesn't prevent patch #1 or #3 being merged, correct? Correct. > Patch #1 specifically makes the inferior call error rather than > assert, which feels like it doesn't raise the same concerns you > discuss above. Absolutely. Thanks, Pedro Alves