From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12850 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 23:28:27 -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 12793 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 23:28:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 23:28:26 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AS2tJ-0002So-Fh; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:28:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] OSF/1 - "next" over prologueless function call Message-ID: <20031204232813.GA9427@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20031202042646.GW1186@gnat.com> <3FCD6468.9020708@gnu.org> <20031204005521.GD716@gnat.com> <3FCE92A1.6010007@gnu.org> <20031204232410.GI1652@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031204232410.GI1652@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:24:10PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Anyway, it's more a matter of style, so I will defer to the preference > of the maintainers, and send a patch along these lines. If we decide > to move the entire condition into a new function, I can send 2 patches: > One that moves the current condition, and then another that fixes > the osf1 problem. Personally, I think this sounds great. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer