From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16183 invoked by alias); 10 May 2010 21:23:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 16172 invoked by uid 22791); 10 May 2010 21:23:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_OC 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; Mon, 10 May 2010 21:23:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE092BABB9; Mon, 10 May 2010 17:23:25 -0400 (EDT) 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 jblLFCy3u4Pv; Mon, 10 May 2010 17:23:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59FF82BABAB; Mon, 10 May 2010 17:23:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E840F58F9; Mon, 10 May 2010 14:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Add watchpoint hit address function to procfs.c Message-ID: <20100510212323.GD7479@adacore.com> References: <006601cae54b$368452f0$a38cf8d0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <201005081823.56505.pedro@codesourcery.com> <004e01caf010$ac780450$05680cf0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <201005102027.10080.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005102027.10080.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 > (BTW, I'm thinking of reformating all comments in procfs.c to > follow the coding conventions, so we avoid the tentation > of proliferating this other format in procfs.c. Joel, you're > the most likely to have non-FSF contributed patches to procfs.c. > If that change would make it harder for you to merge patches > upstream, just say so, and I'll forget doing the reformating.) Thanks for the kind notice! We do have a few procfs patches, but I think that this should not prevent you from going ahead. I might have a little extra grief on the next resync that I do, but that will be fine. -- Joel