From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28840 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2008 18:01:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 28717 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2008 18:01:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:01:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAMI0pId008898; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:00:51 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mAMI0oIK003748; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:00:50 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-17.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.17]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAMI0nNJ024947; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:00:49 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id C3DA5378BCD; Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:00:48 -0700 (MST) To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: fix address in call to val_print References: <20081122051123.GC4318@adacore.com> <20081122175354.GF4318@adacore.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20081122175354.GF4318@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Sat\, 22 Nov 2008 09\:53\:54 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00615.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: >> Ok, I will hold off on this patch until I can make a test case. Joel> No no, don't, that's not what I meant - the patch looked good so let's Joel> put it in now. If you had a testcase, then let's have it now rather than Joel> later, even if it already passed before you applied the patch. If not, Joel> oh well. Sorry, I realize I'm not always clear when I express myself. Sorry, I was too brief. My reasoning was that I do not know whether it is easy to make a test case or not. I would have to look into it. IMO, if it is possible, it makes the most sense to do this before committing the patch. Otherwise, I will have to undo the patch to test it, which is a pain (not so bad in this instance, but in general). Tom