From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14923 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2011 20:14:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 14914 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Oct 2011 20:14:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:14:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9IKEJ5B006407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:14:19 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9IKEJcZ025376; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:14:19 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9IKEIJa009375; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:14:18 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: Abhijit Halder , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PR 9514] Fixing parse error for "pointer to a function pointer" References: <201109291210.01022.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4E8E18FC.4030705@redhat.com> <4E9DD3FC.1060407@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4E9DD3FC.1060407@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:31:08 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00509.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> I still see those as regressions (gdb 7.3.50.20111018-cvs): Also make sure to run the patch against the tests included in my patch. My recollection is that I originally had a much simpler patch but that the 'const' cases made it fail. Tom