This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA]: Patch for ia64-tdep.c to cross-compile
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 10 Feb 2004 08:25:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA]: Patch for ia64-tdep.c to cross-compile
- References: <40282283.4090904@redhat.com> <20040210025527.GA16979@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:55:27 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> >
> > 2004-02-09 Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
> >
> > * ia64-tdep.c (ia64_frame_this_id): Fix tracing print statement
> > to use paddr functions to format ia64 addresses and long values..
> > (ia64_frame_prev_register, ia64_sigtramp_frame_this_id): Ditto.
> > (ia64_sigtramp_frame_prev_register, ia64_access_reg): Ditto.
> > (get_kernel_table, ia64_find_proc_info_x): Ditto.
> > (ia64_get_dyn_info_list, ia64_libunwind_this_frame_id): Ditto.
> > (ia64_libunwind_frame_prev_register, ia64_unwind_dummy_id): Ditto.
> >
>
> I think this patch is "obvious"
If this is an obvious patch, shouldn't we have some coding rule
somewhere to cover it? It certainly isn't obvious out of the GDB
context, i.e. not a standard coding practice.