From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6524 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2005 14:05:53 -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 5098 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2005 14:03:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2005 14:03:59 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1D8Ipt-0001FK-LM for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:03:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:05:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New GDB target iq2000 Message-ID: <20050307140352.GA4759@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050304141439.GA30249@nevyn.them.org> <20050304150129.GF2839@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20050304220104.GA14522@nevyn.them.org> <200503051128.j25BSruw007318@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050305164451.GA8398@nevyn.them.org> <200503051813.j25IDCxt016723@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050305193739.GA13304@nevyn.them.org> <200503052017.j25KHjOK016915@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050305202034.GA15313@nevyn.them.org> <20050307100835.GP2839@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050307100835.GP2839@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:08:35AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 5 15:20, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:17:45PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Yup. Although the lower-limit for first-line breakpoints may cause > > > bogus parameter values to be printed. I consider that less a problem > > > than my program unexpectedly running to completion though. The > > > problem is that some people tend to think differently and we never > > > reached consensus about it. > > > > Well, it makes sense to me. It's clear that the FRV and submitted > > iq2000 ports have different heuristics for these two cases; it would be > > good to cover both of them in common code. > > This is rather getting a generic discussion to me. What about the > iq2000 port itself? Does it make sense to defer iq2000 until after > the generic problem has been solved? No, it doesn't. Did you see the patch I sent you on Friday night? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC