From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7348 invoked by alias); 8 May 2002 13:55:09 -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 7329 invoked from network); 8 May 2002 13:55:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 May 2002 13:55:08 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id KAA14389; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:38:40 +0100 (BST) Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma013381; Wed, 8 May 02 10:37:56 +0100 Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.1.91]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27307; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:37:55 +0100 (BST) 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 KAA07603; Wed, 8 May 2002 10:37:55 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200205080937.KAA07603@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> To: Andrew Cagney 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/rfc] default REGISTER_VIRTUAL_SIZE and REGISTER_RAW_SIZE to register_size In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 May 2002 13:33:53 EDT." <3CD81001.7020506@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 06:55:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 > > ac131313@cygnus.com said: > > > >> Hmm, remember that think-o bug I posted? > > > > > > > > Hmm, yes. Do you remember promising to write some docs on how this was > > all supposed to work? > > > Like: > > http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/onlinedocs/gdbint_9.html#SEC70 > > (which I didn't write). I've have just posted: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-05/msg00123.html > > which, I think, fixes part of the doco. > Ok, you win! Actually, it was the regcache model that I was thinking about when I said that... Sorry for confusing things. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-02/msg00254.html and http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-02/msg00255.html where you said: > I'll try to do the long (add to documentation answer, in about a > week - this really does need to be documented. R