From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18976 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2012 14:40:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 18964 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2012 14:40:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:40:28 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6JEeRa3009643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:40:27 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-30.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.30]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6JEeO3n003200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:40:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:40:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 1/4 take 2] Improved linker-debugger interface Message-ID: <20120719144021.GA6852@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120719110503.GB16185@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120719110503.GB16185@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-07/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 Hi Gary, On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:05:03 +0200, Gary Benson wrote: > This patch encapsulates part of the probes API which the final patch > in this series uses. It is basically the same as [1], updated with > Jan's fixes from [2] and updated to cope with Sergio's changes in [3]. Yes, I find it OK/approved. (Although as stated before I do not find right to check it in on its own before it has any users/callers by some other patch.) Thanks, Jan