From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25542 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2007 20:00:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 25530 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2007 20:00:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:00:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B387E48CC65; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 01330-01-6; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6984C48CBF7; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 923CD34C099; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:01:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:00:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Gabriel Dos Reis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH to gdb/linux-nat.c Message-ID: <20070209200113.GC3365@adacore.com> References: <87odo3ofzd.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> <20070209134923.GA6631@nevyn.them.org> <87tzxve17m.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> <20070209192353.GA30049@nevyn.them.org> <87irebm86x.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> <20070209194127.GA31603@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070209194127.GA31603@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00143.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:39:50PM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > One more favor: Would you mind looking at my other patch? The GCC PR > > I filled was demonstrated to be a duplicate and nothing happened > > since the first PR was filled; I believe GDB+GCC-4.2.0 is affected too. I > > think the patch I sent works around the problem within GDB and > > "improves" the const-correctness of the two functions involved. > > I'd prefer to wait a little while to see if anyone else (Joel maybe) > has comments on that one - he's the expert on that code. Is it the patch to ada-lang.c? I'll have a look at this one very shortly. -- Joel