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 8AEB73858C2F for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2023 03:24:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8AEB73858C2F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 8AEB73858C2F Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1703215497; cv=none; b=M/xmsmt2YmGWGVF3UEFNCQit1Nmndi/uK+P1n7p2iOSHJvKLdh8aMqdAfISLABfLNdkka4uVKZi/7vUiSjsVQ+C5erEbtCsox9PzIBIrP6DCIZJ3xG6nwIEUXMDHrv+LQu2HxZgghyX2RVFyaZ1vKI3v6+IipBkWNjVqpvTxCWE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1703215497; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MAiksSwLhxKXOV9yqQzLRoKHpcL2kWDU5DRBcOB4EnI=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=DW45ql4ZCRXdm+k959iL1rYO4UohBGsm1L/8oAWSueP2kP63SzvhzjwbfuVOUayut3jT08u5OOGVVn8G/xaTh9SPK+qVIuu9YxWPPIAuzks7WlajB95zbe8IfQxswtAc0+v5Y2/vH4PzTO3gF8nxOUWIUkWvwKLfDLB83i/tzzY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1703215496; bh=MAiksSwLhxKXOV9yqQzLRoKHpcL2kWDU5DRBcOB4EnI=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=hdWnuhNokUSksasHYofMzGpWgmVLpE6AIyxrVyYQLtsKY+ZAl4KYjMrn5OSWCDMlB nOvKrAZ9G1C5YLh/Lv2lHIREc8/KtsZufF2pNMlEA9wQxWqLH02YRyOqV69EQS2+YL t8+cS4XJhDmS8KbqtYU6np7BweawCX9c0vbkiQKI= Received: from [10.0.0.11] (modemcable238.237-201-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.237.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 448A61E091; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 22:24:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 22:24:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/26] gdbsupport: fix a typo in a comment in common-regcache.h Content-Language: en-US To: Tankut Baris Aktemur , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,GIT_PATCH_0,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 2023-02-28 06:28, Tankut Baris Aktemur via Gdb-patches wrote: > Fix a typo. > --- > gdbsupport/common-regcache.h | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gdbsupport/common-regcache.h b/gdbsupport/common-regcache.h > index e462f532407..bf14610f98f 100644 > --- a/gdbsupport/common-regcache.h > +++ b/gdbsupport/common-regcache.h > @@ -33,10 +33,10 @@ enum register_status : signed char > > /* The register value is unavailable. E.g., we're inspecting a > traceframe, and this register wasn't collected. Note that this > - is different a different "unavailable" from saying the register > - does not exist in the target's architecture --- in that case, > - the target should have given us a target description that does > - not include the register in the first place. */ > + "unavailable" is different from saying the register does not > + exist in the target's architecture --- in that case, the target > + should have given us a target description that does not include > + the register in the first place. */ > REG_UNAVAILABLE = -1 > }; > LGTM, I think that can be pushed right away. Approved-By: Simon Marchi Simon