From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26885 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2003 08:32:43 -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 26868 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2003 08:32:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 2003 08:32:39 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1345) id DB6ABF29F3; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 04:32:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Hilfinger To: ac131313@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3F56A03E.5020106@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 03 Sep 2003 22:15:26 -0400) Subject: Re: RFA: Changes to allow extensions to operator set References: <20030901093941.0D2E9F2A64@nile.gnat.com> <3F56A03E.5020106@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20030905083238.DB6ABF29F3@nile.gnat.com> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:32:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 > This is a separate but obvious (and tedious) change (you'll notice I > occasionally expunge "register" from random files). Can you first up > just expunge the "register" on the files you're interested in? Doing > this keeps the cosmetic and functional changes separate. Sure. > Oh, gdb.base/store.exp abuses "register" to create a few test senarios. Well, I'm keeping my hands off the testsuite for this round anyway. Paul