From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23331 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2010 20:03:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 23321 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2010 20:03:31 -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; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:03:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295132BAC92; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:03:27 -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 rOgDb7TrnmPv; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099962BAC30; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3064AF59A2; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:03:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ken Werner Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] initial OpenCL C language support Message-ID: <20101026200326.GF2847@adacore.com> References: <201010221920.30046.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201010261505.07587.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201010261800.43899.ken@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20101026195747.GE2847@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101026195747.GE2847@adacore.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: 2010-10/txt/msg00378.txt.bz2 > I have a few comments, and I feel like most of the changes except maybe > the ones in c-exp.y can go in without a followup review. Just to clarify a bit what I was trying to say: Most of the comments are mostly cosmetic, and I don't think we need to verify that you followed the comments correctly. If this was the only comments I had, I would be comfortable with pre-approving the patch, particularly since Tom already looked at it as well. But before the patch goes in, I'd like to understand what the reason for the changes in c-exp.y... -- Joel