From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5163 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2002 17:59:38 -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 5090 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2002 17:59:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jan 2002 17:59:31 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id RAA21174; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:59:29 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma020626; Thu, 10 Jan 02 17:58:36 GMT Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25213; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:58:36 GMT Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26999; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:58:35 GMT Message-Id: <200201101758.RAA26999@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Kevin Buettner cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix inferior_pid argument for arm-netbsd In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jan 2002 15:53:19 GMT." <200201091553.PAA04585@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:59:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 > > On Jan 9, 1:38pm, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > > > * armnbsd-nat.c (fetch_inferior_registers): Change inferior_pid -> > > > inferior_ptid.pid. > > > > Please don't do it this way. Use the accessor functions instead. I've > > looked over your patch, and in each case, you can simply use > > > > ptid_get_pid (inferior_ptid) > > > > Ah! I wasn't aware of the accessor functions. In fact, most targets are > using the macro GETPID (from defs.h). I've fixed the code to use that. > I haven't heard anything further. Can I assume this is acceptable now, or do I have to go into limbo for another month?