From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 692123858D35 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:45:07 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 692123858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88C321E5F9; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] guile: Add support for Guile 2.2. To: Joel Brobecker Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=c3=a8s?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <87v9jbi855.fsf@gnu.org> <20200628142540.11320-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20200718190038.GA582@adacore.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <0a54056e-c491-6e87-5ad3-4f652f92383f@simark.ca> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 11:45:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200718190038.GA582@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:45:08 -0000 On 2020-07-18 3:00 p.m., Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hi Simon, > >>> This primarily updates code that uses the I/O port API of Guile. >> >> I know nothing about Guile, so I just scanned the patch for any obvious >> red flags, but didn't see any. The mess of #if statements sure is not >> the best, but I don't have a concrete suggestion to make it better. > > I'm not confident that we'll be able to find a reviewer who has > more experience with this part of the Code. What do you think of > approving this patch series based on your review? Yeah, I think we can go ahead. Ludovic, do you have push access or would you like me to push it? Simon