From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 235913858D28 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:12 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 235913858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=us.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=us.ibm.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30HHg6nq031500; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:11 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : subject; s=pp1; bh=l1dhJrKyIPSMfTDbfqBwbwPPB87r0/D14Ezjc5+yEHU=; b=Q0XGwa/F3Lb1yxQqyE0H8A2Izr2McxF9C4Ho12sIH7LcCgpNaeZq1N3skKEMF1iYrFos 1fF7jV9pa4gCnetyh9bawOjUwFmnYUXARpKx1M7BV5O7X9NaWMn25+xPXeIw3j/d5Wg/ 3eElT9lYyCeb9aZDe1zoqExTM2rXCWbl6FlPBDNJ6rNP/kb1yQeuRX9v1hEz6Bnt4EZR sdwbWeB8TVbcU+20klN/JFWqtTLuESDtCji48Wt6lo7FU26l/vp8KGE0q70GXYDooYWa VK1bK69oPknH0nvHvPmraDkNpDugn3t9Djl0ewIEYrGeOeH2Pis/iTP9y/uLfrLm5Y6y +w== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n60a12dur-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:10 +0000 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 30HJJ0Ym013912; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:10 GMT Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n60a12dug-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:10 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30HH9LqG005665; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:09 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.129.117]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n3m17fgrb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:09 +0000 Received: from smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.104]) by smtprelay05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 30HJV79w54002008 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:08 GMT Received: from smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4B758067; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355185805D; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e362e14c-2378-11b2-a85c-87d605f3c641.ibm.com (unknown [9.163.12.142]) by smtpav05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 19:31:07 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: From: Carl Love To: Tom de Vries , Bruno Larsen , Ulrich Weigand , "will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: cel@us.ibm.com Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 11:31:06 -0800 In-Reply-To: <59417813-eb4a-baf8-4e5d-e225d6732f71@suse.de> References: <50474aa92ba82eff05cdc8f49001eae56be29670.camel@us.ibm.com> <89331c26795e3f7743e1e068dce43b3c2dd53008.camel@us.ibm.com> <071f24ecf9b3a2bbbe8fee7db77492eb55c5f3ff.camel@us.ibm.com> <1d9b21914354bef6a290ac30673741e722e11757.camel@de.ibm.com> <3e3c9c40f07ab01c79fe10915e76ffa187c42ad9.camel@us.ibm.com> <122f5d2d3db9ef1979b0f8da927d005f32bba82c.camel@us.ibm.com> <011768e8-2b76-f8ed-1174-fbaa020b15e7@redhat.com> <78b464a1-e32e-c3da-85e4-7bfc322cc29f@redhat.com> <7848e9858b54e33e399b871774ffc0b5058c1736.camel@us.ibm.com> <65d44121-65f7-a212-79ec-07ce53c15ecb@suse.de> <9fe94c0979cb40979b0dea7693a901c2d9f66164.camel@us.ibm.com> <59417813-eb4a-baf8-4e5d-e225d6732f71@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-18.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: DyDHL7g0n0rQa1cvZBSZs1we3KTbKydu X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 9dpkZc9XU1KseR3JiNzbF1pBRdzYbQO- Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2 version 2] fix for gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp and gdb.reverse/finish-reverse.exp X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.923,Hydra:6.0.562,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2023-01-17_10,2023-01-17_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=761 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2212070000 definitions=main-2301170156 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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: Tom: On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 18:14 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 1/17/23 18:03, Carl Love wrote: > > Tom: > > > > On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 17:55 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > AFAICT, this has been committed just now. > > > > > > I'm having difficulty finding an approval, did it happen maybe > > > offlist? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > - Tom > > > > I just committed it based on Bruno's reply. > > > > > The patch has been tested on X86 and PowerPC with no > > regressions. > > > > I will reiterate that I don't know much about PPC, so the best > > I can do > > is check for style and tests, but apart from a few minor nits > > inlined, > > it looks ok > > > > Tested-By: Bruno Larsen > > > > I thought that was an approval to commit. Is it not? > > Hi Carl, > > sorry, AFAIU it's not. Bruno has been helpfully reviewing your > patch, > but AFAIK he cannot approve it. > > This is an easy mistake to make though, given the used formulation, > it's > not the first time it happened, and it's one of the reasons we're > trying > to move towards replying with the Approved-By tag to make approval > more > formal, explicit and unambiguous. > > FYI, I'm working my way toward reviewing these patches, and have > regained access to my usual powerpc machine, so I'll try to > reproduce > the issue you're seeing. OK, thanks for the clarification on the process. In the past, I have had people explicitly state in their reply that they could not approve a patch but were just reviewing and commenting on it. I will be sure to look for the "Approved-By tag" in the future. Sorry for the mistake. Please let me know if you need me to revert the patch, make some fixes, or? Thanks. Carl