From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25569 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 20:12:50 -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 25541 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 20:12:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 20:12:47 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7GJwnl13548 for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:58:49 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7GKChu03092; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:12:43 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (IDENT:SSs0363huRsbNfywVexh7IjhpSTJ4GiV@romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7GKCbe25222; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:12:37 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7GKCak31253; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:12:36 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:12:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020816201235.ZM31252@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [patch/ob] not_a_breakpoint -> not_a_sw_breakpoint" (Aug 16, 3:34pm) References: <3D5D1C3E.8070203@ges.redhat.com> <1020816164312.ZM11179@localhost.localdomain> <3D5D37A7.2090003@ges.redhat.com> <1020816185159.ZM30848@localhost.localdomain> <3D5D53AF.1000908@ges.redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [patch/ob] not_a_breakpoint -> not_a_sw_breakpoint Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00450.txt.bz2 On Aug 16, 3:34pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > I think that is separate. The ``intent'' of the variable is to indicate > that what is being looked at isn't a trap due to a software breakpoint > event. Okay, I've studied the code some more and I finally agree. (I haven't convinced myself though that the conditions used to instantiate this variable will guarantee this ``intent''.) Kevin