From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3837 invoked by alias); 10 May 2007 21:55:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 3817 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2007 21:55:34 -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, 10 May 2007 21:55:30 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EF74B267; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:55:29 -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 44F254B262; Thu, 10 May 2007 16:55:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HmGbg-00013E-UL; Thu, 10 May 2007 17:55:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 21:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] [1/4] SPU overlay support: New gdbarch_overlay_update routine Message-ID: <20070510215528.GD3187@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200705072224.l47MOhOw023285@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705072224.l47MOhOw023285@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> 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: 2007-05/txt/msg00175.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:24:43AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > According to the overlays.exp test case, only the (obsolete) d10v > and m32r targets support overlays. Thus I've installed the > existing "simple" overlay manager for the m32r target only. > If this is incorrect, it could be added to other targets as > well. Or should we have the gdbarch function default always > to simple_overlay_update? I think it's fine the way you did it. Modulo the comments I just sent out, this all looks fine (but NEWS-worthy). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery