From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-27537-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 30182 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 12:49:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 30173 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 12:49:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.115.144)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 12:49:38 -0000
Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2])
	by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h96CnU7t000325;
	Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:49:30 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org)
Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h96CnUMi000469;
	Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:49:30 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)
	by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id h96CnP6f000466;
	Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:49:25 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:49:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200310061249.h96CnP6f000466@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
To: kevinb@redhat.com
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <1031004002813.ZM24546@localhost.localdomain> (message from Kevin
	Buettner on Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:28:13 -0700)
Subject: Re: [RFC] TARGET_ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS - patch 1 of 4
References:  <1031004002813.ZM24546@localhost.localdomain>
X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2

   Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:28:13 -0700
   From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>

   The patch below should be non-controversial.  It merely adds the
   TARGET_ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS method.  Code which uses it (the
   possibly controversial bit) will come in patch #3.  Documentation will
   be in the next patch, #2.  Finally, target specific code which
   requires TARGET_ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS will be posted in patch #4.

Do we really need the "TARGET" in the name of the new method?  It made
me think that this was something that was going to be added to the
target-vector instead of the architecture vector.

Mark