From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 43524 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2019 23:54:24 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 43516 invoked by uid 89); 10 Oct 2019 23:54:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mail-vs1-f66.google.com Received: from mail-vs1-f66.google.com (HELO mail-vs1-f66.google.com) (209.85.217.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:54:23 +0000 Received: by mail-vs1-f66.google.com with SMTP id y129so5088420vsc.6 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:54:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sifive.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+p3CLe5mzyY67Qt9nlp30w4rz0BCCBQR+QTx2xQfK8Q=; b=QEO1G+rX3IYdZZGuvNjmyyAP2U9/9PiV7IgKQMm4nZ63izawbZBC/+qYPIAKvjhbxf ynQlS5SOgOkKc33nO6xnYIe2IVhwFPt7apLI3ViHzGUHGKJhr9278LdAgvE2QAJFS0NP PzvTza9+soe8+9iiyjN4TKrerBen3+NIVxJdZWQo40gqYQzOp4KeX9930QWCmNRINitL B04dpdn7PxWIrWO7yl/hirCbNLLIe4Rbb4QU2wv3WmmCmPq2F6CZ+TK/grtO5kEzwYtf 0hTemzZ3YMamg6+NM+F1bMxm0v8Zp5sMBOooouiUrKK8dkr1tYXG84iLGCVgAviiGhbN wGMw== MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jim Wilson Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: [PATCH 0/2] fix ARI warnings for RISC-V port and fallout To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Jim Wilson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 The first patch fixes the RISC-V ARI warnings reported in July. The second patch fixes problems with the print-utils.h function comments I noticed because I had to figure out what they did to write the first patch. This was tested with a riscv64-linux build and check, with no regressions. I also tested gdb by hand to verify that the debugging comment was still correct after the change as there is no testcase for that. Jim