From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32053 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2004 19:07:19 -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 32039 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2004 19:07:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sadr.equallogic.com) (66.155.203.134) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2004 19:07:16 -0000 Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i3MJ7F5G026359 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:07:16 -0400 Received: from M30.equallogic.com (m30 [172.16.1.30]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id i3MJ7FpQ026354; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:07:15 -0400 Received: from PKONING.equallogic.com ([172.16.1.120]) by M30.equallogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:07:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16520.6116.810000.763508@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:07:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: eliz@gnu.org Cc: orjan.friberg@axis.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@false.org Subject: Re: Display of read/access watchpoints when HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT References: <407282F4.2080602@axis.com> <20040406142228.GA29473@nevyn.them.org> <6654-Thu15Apr2004111217+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <407E8CEF.2050007@axis.com> <407FC69A.1000701@axis.com> <1438-Sat17Apr2004112204+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <4083E930.8040005@axis.com> <4087DFB6.1030801@axis.com> <3405-Thu22Apr2004213815+0300-eliz@gnu.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2004 19:07:18.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[07FC7AA0:01C4289D] X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00536.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:07:34 +0200 From: Orjan Friberg >> >> >> ... which brings me back to the reason for re-opening this thread: >> getting Paul Koning's patch to make read/access watchpoints work >> when HAVE_NONSTEPPABLE_WATCHPOINT is defined accepted. Eli> I want to approve this, but first I'd like to refresh my memory Eli> about the original patch. Could you please point me at the Eli> message where Paul posted his patch and its reasons? Original message: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-05/msg00506.html Further explanation: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-05/msg00516.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-05/msg00540.html Discussion about a testcase: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-05/msg00546.html Do I need gdb copyright assignment for this patch to go in? I don't remember if I have it at this point; if it's easy to check with FSF that may be best, otherwise I can dig through piles of paper... paul