This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH RFA] Zap EXTRA_FRAME_INFO for ARM target
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Earnshaw <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>,Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>,Scott Bambrough <sbambrough at zimismobile dot com>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:49:15 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] Zap EXTRA_FRAME_INFO for ARM target
- References: <1011215082551.ZM11544@ocotillo.lan> <3C4B4F9B.email@example.com> <1020121204528.ZM2093@localhost.localdomain>
> Thinking about it Jason was correct in taking this aproach (I suspect
>> I've done this with other targets). A patch making the single
>> independant change of eliminating EXTRA_FRAME_INFO is mechanical, and as
>> such, can be treated as obvious.
> I think it depends upon the target. For ARM, nearly all of the
> changes were mechanical, but the ARM target has some pecularities
> which required some care.
If someone is multi-arching a target and accidently breaks it (even
though before/after tests showed no problems) then I consider that
acceptable risk. (It is a testsuite bug right :-)
If a change is more technical then tableing it for a few days wouldn't
hurt. However, in the end I think us as maintainers need to show
confidence in the person doing the work and give them a free hand.