From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11851 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2011 16:38:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 11532 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2011 16:38:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:38:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C454B2BB5DF; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:38:23 -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 649TEQte7VFH; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979262BB5DE; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8A81C145615; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Restore old handling of multi-register variables Message-ID: <20111007163812.GT19246@adacore.com> References: <1317675787-7351-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201110061854.52856.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20111006201053.GS19246@adacore.com> <201110062159.55379.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201110062159.55379.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: 2011-10/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 > Well, your patch doesn't really make it worse, so I won't > object if you want to put it in. It's not perfect, but it's > better than what we have now, which doesn't work even > for fully available values. Thanks! But let me see what I can do. I might have a little bit more time mid-to-late November. Worse case scenario, we can put this workaround in the 7.4 branch... -- Joel