Michael,
The gdb-patches mailing list should work. Can you try using it for
the next iteration?
Again, please state the intent of the patch. What are you fixing?
I can often guess from the patch itself, but sometimes I get it wrong.
A good way of presenting your change, for instance, is to show the debugger
output before and after your patch,
I am realizing that perhaps you don't know how to read the contents
of patch files? For instance:
diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog
index 753fbb0..bc71679 100644
--- a/gdb/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/ChangeLog
This bit of the patch says that you are modifying the ChangeLog.
I mentioned in a previous message that it's simpler for you to send
the entry as inlined text inside the body of your email, rather than
as a patch, but I don't mind. However, looking further into the patch,
it says that you are proposing the following modifications to this file:
- Add new tracepoint action teval.
- * tracepoint.c (teval_pseudocommand): New function.
- (validate_actionline): Add teval action case.
- (encode_actions): Ditto.
- (_initialize_tracepoint): Define teval pseudocommand.
- * NEWS: Mention teval.
[...]
The leading minus '-' signs mean that you propose to remove this entry
(and many other entries). I don't think you really meant that.
I couldn't locate any change that seemed to add an entry, but maybe
I missed it, since the diff was so large and mostly irrelevant.
-/* Print the status word STATUS. */
-
-static void
-print_i387_status_word (unsigned int status, struct ui_file *file)
+/* print the status word */
+static void print_i387_status_word (unsigned int status, struct ui_file *file)
This part of the patch says that:
(1) You are replacing the following comment:
/* Print the status word STATUS. */
with:
/* print the status word */
(2) You are removing the newline between "static void" and
the function name "print_i387_status_word"
I don't think that (1) was really intended, was it? Your version
brings no additional information, but at the same time no longer
follow the GNU coding style: Comments should be English sentences
starting a capital letter and ending with a dot. Not also the two
spaces after the dot, which is mandated by the GNU Coding Style.
- fprintf_filtered (file, "Status Word: %s",
- hex_string_custom (status, 4));
+ fprintf_filtered (file, "status word : %s\n", hex_string_custom(status, 4));
You made a formatting change which is incorrect: The code should go no
further than column 78-80. Please leave the call to hex_string_custom
on the next line where it was. Make sure, when you send a new patch,
that the diff does not show any difference on this line, particularly
differences in spaces.
+ fprintf_filtered (file, "%s ", (status & 0x0020) ? "PE" : " "); /* precision */
I think that these added comments are superfluous - any developer working
on that code should have a basic knowledge of this FPU and thus know
what these abbreviations mean. I do not mind them so much, except that
they cause the line to exceed 80 chars, or be sufficient close to it,
that these comments should be on a line of their own.