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 A5F6E3876898 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:38:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A5F6E3876898 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca Received: from [172.16.42.115] (modemcable092.73-163-184.mc.videotron.ca [184.163.73.92]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE8001E0D3; Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:38:14 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1679665094; bh=U1bektrFMk/8nW/LnRWBoM6XYaUPl4cONdgXlJ34Fj8=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=A4VwGntGu6zQRvexe5PiXZr2DS/ZbSsD0wDGGsISYerDYQSa4K5X6ayKUCiSNNgic 2yenivMXsSd0qq34b4Bxapjg37wLEkt6d53ygMNiRVHs0HQ2nYzdgr3AWeYDgcgwXn k2PFmebWd3wmPrAy83Bo/ssoZkypgRY4gi8eLPMQ= Message-ID: <8a75f1cd-a09a-2e34-f294-89d253d4d46a@simark.ca> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:38:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add more flexibility to inferior call Content-Language: fr To: "Bouhaouel, Mohamed" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <20230322171352.9087-1-mohamed.bouhaouel@intel.com> <88985e8e-be62-e407-3cca-8b554e3f4665@simark.ca> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 3/23/23 07:34, Bouhaouel, Mohamed wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Thanks for your feedback. These patches are pre-requisite for an Intel architecture > that has not been yet up-streamed. Waiting for the architecture to be introduced > first is likely more logical, although, such flexibility might be useful for > other new architectures. > > Should I submit a new version of those patches while considering your comments > or wait to post all together? I think it's better to post it with the first architecture that uses it. It helps illustrate what the method is for and how it works. But also, if your port never ends up upstream for whatever reason, it doesn't make sense to have those methods with no users. Simon