From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 0AC43383FD41; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 16:43:24 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0AC43383FD41 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1670345004; bh=PETeVmjmHzzalTPErRdsvV3K8l2W+3eegGd/3uP7toE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ERgbX3WWn1fgFeBq7VfiSQ8RFqEBMVIymXPvYwufggVaQtida0sfQMf1rH1p9j1+e YHsK/FwsISYNfEswePDMLz9Uk3Xx5j4Kh6FPjpjltioAx4JC8T8WuZXk0ezNwQ4Pgq zO2eawxTIBjvbVgO3JcrNUpQqtD36WBnpUbtBEJ8= From: "macro at orcam dot me.uk" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug tdep/29804] [gdb/tdep, vax] Remove gdbarch_deprecated_function_start_offset Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 16:43:23 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: tdep X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: macro at orcam dot me.uk X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29804 --- Comment #11 from Maciej W. Rozycki --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #10) > > I'm not sure I understand your question, possibly I'm missing some cont= ext > > related to vax, but my understanding is that in order to test a potenti= al > > patch we'd need to be able to run the gdb testsuite on vax without and = with > > the patch, to make sure we don't introduce regressions. >=20 > Sorry, what I meant is that for a reasonably obscure target like > this, and for a change that just affects some prologue skipping, > it seems to me that we could test it with just an executable > and by examining the effects of "break whatever". Well, I'm perfectly happy to regression-test this target, whether for this PR or overall to know how it performs (or does not). I have it scheduled later this month. If that does not work for some reason, then we can look for a fallback solution. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=