From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5396 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2002 20:46:41 -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 5387 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2002 20:46:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.114.42) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2002 20:46:38 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g68KkQj04157; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:46:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g68KkQo00587; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 22:46:26 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 13:54:00 -0000 From: Mark Kettenis Message-Id: <200207082046.g68KkQo00587@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> To: ac131313@ges.redhat.com CC: muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3D29DDAE.9080702@ges.redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Mon, 08 Jul 2002 14:45:02 -0400) Subject: Re: Resend: [RFA] Fix problem with i386 watchpoints after restarting References: <4.2.0.58.20020704143015.02832028@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <200206131016.g5DAGcf00647@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4.2.0.58.20020613091046.01957c70@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20020613091046.01957c70@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20020704143015.02832028@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20020704183019.027bb788@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <3D29DDAE.9080702@ges.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 14:45:02 -0400 From: Andrew Cagney > I would also be in favor of putting it into the branch, but I > don't know who should decide this.... Something for the i386 maintainers to decide. I have no objections (and if we one counts the number of i386 targets that I'm supposed to maintain, I guess I have the majority vote ;-)). So please, go ahead! Mark