From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-20359-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9723 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2002 21:43:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9716 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2002 21:43:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2002 21:43:13 -0000
Received: (from carlton@localhost)
	by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gAPLh2j11303;
	Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:43:02 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f
To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>, Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>,
   gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa+5.3] bug in my earlier DW_TAG_namespace patch
References: <ro1fztuh2kx.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
	<3DE29434.2090205@redhat.com>
	<15842.38677.146754.12091@localhost.redhat.com>
From: David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:43:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <15842.38677.146754.12091@localhost.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ro18yzhcom1.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00615.txt.bz2

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:33:09 -0500, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> said:

>> I've enclosed a patch below: for obvious reasons, it should go into
>> GDB 5.3 as well.  I've run GDB on a copy of GDB with this patch
>> applied and followed the control flow when GDB runs into various
>> sorts of DW_TAG_namespace entries, and the control flow seems to
>> behave like I expect it to.  (This is, admittedly, after only a
>> limited amount of testing.)  I'm in the middle of running the
>> testsuite (I'll run it twice, once on a compiler that doesn't
>> generate DW_TAG_namespace entries and once on a compiler that
>> does); assuming that there are no new regressions, is the patch
>> okay?

> Were there regressions?

Nope.

> If not, go ahead.

Thanks, will do.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu