From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24385 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2004 21:06:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24357 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2004 21:06:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Nov 2004 21:06:33 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.147.231]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.5-GR) with ESMTP id DCU41319 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:57:57 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:06:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c4cc1e$Blat.v2.2.2$c820e260@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, joseph@codesourcery.com, kevinb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <419A2742.8070804@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:13:54 -0500) Subject: Re: Assume solib.h Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4193BFA0.3060607@gnu.org> <200411112005.iABK5FrV098628@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4193DDCE.7060205@gnu.org> <200411112224.iABMODmo099121@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4194DBEB.6010304@gnu.org> <01c4c8db$Blat.v2.2.2$377f5020@zahav.net.il> <419942CB.4000905@gnu.org> <01c4cb98$Blat.v2.2.2$fc133040@zahav.net.il> <419A2742.8070804@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:13:54 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, joseph@codesourcery.com, kevinb@redhat.com, > gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > >>and how my change breaks it? > > > > > > This part I don't know the details about. Mark said that it does > > break, and I spoke on the assumption that you agree with the fact of > > breakage, > > Unfortunatly your assumption is wrong. I wrote that before this was established. > As I stated to Mark, and > contrary to his assertion, powerpc-elf passes this sniff test: The discussion would have stayed more technical and calm if, instead of elevating it to a principle to which some of us disagree, you'd show the facts and tried to convince. > > but don't consider it important. > > The mind boggles, if the facts aren't important, what is? I think you simply misunderstood what I wrote.