From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16765 invoked by alias); 3 May 2007 17:44:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 16757 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2007 17:44:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 May 2007 17:44:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l43Hi4xI000843 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 13:44:04 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l43Hi4VH030727 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 13:44:04 -0400 Received: from ironwood.lan (vpn-14-109.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.109]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l43Hi2Ec008552 for ; Thu, 3 May 2007 13:44:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 17:44:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] Set a breakpoint's type before adjusting its address Message-ID: <20070503104402.0eda1bd9@ironwood.lan> In-Reply-To: <20070503023849.GA14488@caradoc.them.org> References: <20070427151559.0394bfa0@ironwood.lan> <20070428214510.GA12239@caradoc.them.org> <20070502171549.05134b10@ironwood.lan> <20070503023849.GA14488@caradoc.them.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-05/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2 May 2007 22:38:49 -0400 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 05:15:49PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > Appended below is a new patch which calls adjust_breakpoint_address() > > prior to allocating the breakoint's location. What do you think of > > this approach? > > I'm much happier with this patch; I think it's OK to commit. Thanks for looking it over. I've committed it. Kevin