From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28872 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2009 18:24:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 28859 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Dec 2009 18:24:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:24:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2942BAB50; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id o0PS6N8eVEe5; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:24:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E2E2BAB4F; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:24:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7842EF5892; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:23:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: S?rgio Durigan J?nior Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Thiago Jung Bauermann , Luis Machado , Matt Tyrlik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support the new PPC476 processor Message-ID: <20091220182356.GK2788@adacore.com> References: <200912161847.17162.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20091220131521.GH2788@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00285.txt.bz2 > I am sorry about that. When I sent the patch, I decided to use the > same approach that I used for the catch syscall series, but apparently > it wasn't a good idea. Not to worry. This is probably a matter of personal taste too, which is why I did not demand, but rather ask if it was possible. In particular, if someone else manages to review these patches, I'm prefectly happy. > When I decided to use this term, I based that decision on the fact > that gdbserver uses the same nomenclature: for example, it has a > variable called `debug_hw_points', the methods `insert_point' and > `remove_point', etc. A very valid ... point! :-). If this is an already established nomenclature, then this is fine. I don't see the point of changing now. -- Joel