This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Scan for Mach-O start address in LC_MAIN and properly check bfd_mach_o_scan_start_address's return value

From: David Albert <davidbalbert at gmail dot com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:57:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Scan for Mach-O start address in LC_MAIN and properly check bfd_mach_o_scan_start_address's return value
References: <CAKYxTUadUr9GUqMHAA3JdASDfwuEFzS9txT+aXQSQjro+iwx8w@mail.gmail.com> <874nklsj9d.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "David" == David Albert <davidbalbert@gmail.com> writes:
>
> David> - I didn't run the test suite because it wasn't clear what parts of
> David> the suite I should run. I tested it manually and didn't find any
> David> regressions.
>
> Unfortunately, what you have to do is run the entire test suite before
> and after your change, and verify that there were no regressions or
> dropped tests.  Also you have to know that some tests fail spuriously --
> I guess you could post a list of differences and someone could advise.

Sorry I missed this. I ran the binutils test suite before submitting.

-David

>
> Tom

References:
- [PATCH] Scan for Mach-O start address in LC_MAIN and properly check bfd_mach_o_scan_start_address's return value
  - From: David Albert
- Re: [PATCH] Scan for Mach-O start address in LC_MAIN and properly check bfd_mach_o_scan_start_address's return value
  - From: Tom Tromey

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]