From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12908 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2007 13:35:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 12900 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2007 13:35:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:34:54 +0100 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21084B267; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:34:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953814B262; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:34:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HbzRr-0004Pr-AF; Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:34:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Luis Machado Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole. Message-ID: <20070412133451.GA16668@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1173997454.4772.27.camel@localhost> <20070410204010.GB2056@caradoc.them.org> <1176379764.4434.16.camel@localhost> <20070412121528.GA11412@caradoc.them.org> <1176382440.4434.23.camel@localhost> <20070412125850.GA13780@caradoc.them.org> <1176384326.4434.28.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1176384326.4434.28.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-04/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:25:26AM -0300, Luis Machado wrote: > The typos were corrected and the gdbarch.[c|h] files were updated with > gdbarch.sh, though the comment was just added to gdbarch.h, not > gdbarch.c, is this correct? Yes, it is. This version is fine. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery