From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id AKDkCm2CZWj2QikAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2025 15:03:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1751482989; bh=vcXDC8ePy3bBkIxFjPLST1EbpFsdf6kfZIyOaaNc658=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=OO/CkXRmdoxsqDiWYlBarEiJ0oFfixvUo9R0+fZMKzr+Q7ujDCxtcr+t4FDG25rd+ 9MhfIwJqWfKBzjHq+/zrF5he6H66mmVEwX2XRhwg8ublrUMHvz3NLxETWhK9FXL2bL YoBlwLyVKoS6arlfEZ+Qh3L6se6lxPwYY4DMU8iQ= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 137261E11E; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:03:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=eKMtqJa3; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=o/sPKFit; dkim-atps=neutral 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 9E81A1E0C2 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 341D0385E825 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 19:03:08 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 341D0385E825 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=eKMtqJa3; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=o/sPKFit Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 724D8385782C for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 19:02:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 724D8385782C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 724D8385782C Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1751482949; cv=none; b=Nx6hyhSzXP0FTJcll6vWkwIxTHdfwFKjZDV1MXML0ymMV5GkSyrggu26aOLKxKwZEVfQEMHDpC2liT3KJBs0627BMGQ7xBpEBWOyXRqkPuCnKmAndqlnip4dD9xdNIcbqeUsNBYFf2g8uSMhzziE5rN2QjNsWULq3y6Q8/uCw50= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1751482949; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vcXDC8ePy3bBkIxFjPLST1EbpFsdf6kfZIyOaaNc658=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Subject:To:From; b=tgYoLrOdObX/nbSbqvrWFVUJJvWx8r5bQj7NXjUInwTjfSfHIHuvO8FY4Y11/dEEm8cROQM1skcCDpJbBhkcliPCB+YWzm55moAmHH1OFV8Wio3fbevwGlcelwCjvs+krx0bZeGkTfikIP8vuDxeLA++vo0EFylQwG9Qw+0bjFk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 724D8385782C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1751482949; bh=vcXDC8ePy3bBkIxFjPLST1EbpFsdf6kfZIyOaaNc658=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=eKMtqJa34CxYZRdeL6/5b+jgDQovPaN2z45F9/zxYHN3EgnI7nn1cWNpm3qt/L1w0 jJtu1G3R9Dxfcq0y0UPD7UHU6sk3JAujcluFLg3oukv/lzjP/u1/PkuZvbc4SYFzTD OLuNnrqkgw+iNtaDbukGTtbTRl5/8bFFF78+vuDI= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 24D131E126; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:02:29 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1751482947; bh=vcXDC8ePy3bBkIxFjPLST1EbpFsdf6kfZIyOaaNc658=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=o/sPKFitEy4Q0qxZ2AuW0A4FYr83t5gslQOKYlqRfOs0o/D0MHxjJJkhZDWawH3cQ iIPFUXeVtH0wKNEzgLMqzB82+F93NIolGa1uh9bjwKqZth2lYwjy3AREgnf11g0ZOJ K+79pJXcQY71lKuaaRZ2PviOL86CtlUDQn8Ig1jE= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-132-26.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.132.26]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B07B91E0C2; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:02:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 15:02:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb/alpha: Add target description support To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Yodel Eldar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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> Content-Language: fr From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 7/2/25 2:53 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jun 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. Thanks, Simon