From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20409 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2001 19:33:09 -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 18928 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2001 19:31:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) (207.175.42.154) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2001 19:31:52 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (cgf.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.1.172]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id fBAJVqh04458 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:31:52 -0500 Received: (from cgf@localhost) by redhat.com (8.11.6/8.8.7) id fBAJWDr26060 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:32:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:33:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Add hardware watchpoint support for cygwin target. Message-ID: <20011210193213.GD25811@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <4.2.0.58.20011206092315.016150f0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <8011-Wed28Nov2001201312+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <4.2.0.58.20011128183252.00acd198@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <8011-Wed28Nov2001201312+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <4.2.0.58.20011206092315.016150f0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20011210111416.013e24f0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20011210111416.013e24f0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:21:48AM +0100, Pierre Muller wrote: >At 01:58 08/12/2001 , Christopher Faylor a ?crit: >>On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:37:23AM +0100, Pierre Muller wrote: >> >This is probably an UI_OUT specific problem, but as its again not >> >cygwin specific I don't think that there is any reason to delay >> >approval. >> >>Have we seen independent corroboration of the bugs that you reported? > >I am not sure I understand your question. > > Do you ask if someone else saw this unwanted 'Hardware watchpoint : ....' >messages. I don't know, nobody explicitly did respond to the messages >by saying that this is indeed the case, but the way to reproduce them >is quite straight forward: That's sort of what I'm asking, yes. It would be nice if the maintainers for the ports that you tested were to confirm or deny the behavior that you've noticed. cgf