From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id E/qgNt4QT2PcMw4AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:47:26 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D24811E112; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=mkkHmF2o; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from 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 RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A671E0D5 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7253858D39 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:47:25 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9C7253858D39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1666126045; bh=VALMg5v9l7PslC90AuFoWZsGCb5jIPzv5fe8piK2GP0=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=mkkHmF2oM95KOPDRvm3PxOjwjXWVCq/ZSStLjBhdGGzceAIeUdJoU+QYeo+4vcR9e nsgWswpCXg9XiMQDpxxBVZo6Q00Gg49F+ekk50vN2hzPIbbWmGJ0GDeFxBkUTzoAJE BEDqbXaoR/evIvxWovB8vNHLkGfztG0x6f227rvM= Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C32C63858D3C for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 20:47:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C32C63858D3C Received: from [10.0.0.85] (modemcable162.249-56-74.mc.videotron.ca [74.56.249.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F35B51E0D5; Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:47:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: check for groups with duplicate names in reggroups:add Content-Language: fr To: Tom Tromey , Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches References: <20221018141733.29298-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <87v8ohgeh9.fsf@tromey.com> <87r0z5gdmb.fsf@tromey.com> In-Reply-To: <87r0z5gdmb.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 10/18/22 15:01, Tom Tromey wrote: > Simon> I don't think so, because the target description support code creates > Simon> the groups as it finds them while iterating registers. > > Thanks, in that case this seems like a good idea to me. > > Tom I am asking, because these things are still new, so better safe than sorry: are you fine with me adding your Approved-By? Simon