From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10204 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 15:37:06 -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 10196 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 15:37:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 15:37:05 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h96Fb5129410 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:37:05 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h96Fb5c18349; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:37:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-46.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h96Fb3be009224; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:37:04 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h96FawX11198; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:36:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:37:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031006153657.ZM11197@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Mark Kettenis "Re: [RFC] TARGET_ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS - patch 1 of 4" (Oct 6, 2:49pm) References: <1031004002813.ZM24546@localhost.localdomain> <200310061249.h96CnP6f000466@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> To: Mark Kettenis , kevinb@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] TARGET_ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS - patch 1 of 4 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00101.txt.bz2 On Oct 6, 2:49pm, Mark Kettenis wrote: > The patch below should be non-controversial. It merely adds the > TARGET_ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS method. Code which uses it (the > possibly controversial bit) will come in patch #3. Documentation will > be in the next patch, #2. Finally, target specific code which > requires TARGET_ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS will be posted in patch #4. > > Do we really need the "TARGET" in the name of the new method? It made > me think that this was something that was going to be added to the > target-vector instead of the architecture vector. How about just "ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS" ? Kevin