From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24297 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2010 18:55:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 24284 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2010 18:55:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:55:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0192BACCB; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UA+ViDrt7PtB; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F7C2BAC9D; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E7ED1F591F; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed Sep 29 01:54:08 UTC 2010 Message-ID: <20100929185538.GO3007@adacore.com> References: <20100929015408.GA32737@sourceware.org> <20100929163246.GN3007@adacore.com> <201009291800.28269.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201009291800.28269.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-09/txt/msg00497.txt.bz2 > The ARI suggestion makes no sense. It's the ARI that needs fixing. That's what I was thinking too. > My guess is that the intention was to suggest replacing > read_register() with regcache_read() at.al. (that is, s/memory/register) > read_register/write_register have been yanked out from the sources > already few years ago. That makes sense. I have modified the ARI script accordingly, and rerun it, in order to expunge the references to read_memory in the reference report. The two extra emails we should get shortly from gdbadmin should reflect these changes. Thanks, -- Joel