From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-32625-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24770 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2004 17:40:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 24758 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2004 17:40:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2004 17:40:11 -0000
Received: from zaretski (pns03-208-152.inter.net.il [80.230.208.152])
	by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.5-GR)
	with ESMTP id BQZ07929;
	Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:39:54 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:40:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Message-Id: <2914-Wed28Apr2004204005+0300-eliz@gnu.org>
CC: orjan.friberg@axis.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <408FDF20.7000306@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 28
	Apr 2004 12:43:12 -0400)
Subject: Re: Multiplexed registers and invalidating the register cache
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <407D242B.109@axis.com> <20040414144607.GA5700@nevyn.them.org> <407E67EA.80701@axis.com> <407E70FD.7060709@axis.com> <407EAA4B.7000500@gnu.org> <407FD693.2080804@axis.com> <408030DB.3080708@gnu.org> <4083DE9C.7000208@axis.com> <40869FC4.2090407@gnu.org> <4087CF61.4030109@axis.com> <4087D794.10209@gnu.org> <4088FD0F.7050501@axis.com> <408927CF.10807@gnu.org> <40893437.2020907@axis.com> <4089636D.2090605@gnu.org> <7137-Sat24Apr2004113105+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <408FDF20.7000306@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00640.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:43:12 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >>
> >>>> > +The target's register contents has changed.
> >>
> >>> 
> >>> FYI, this should probably read:
> >>> 	The target's memory or register contents have [has?] changed.
> >>> eli?
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure; what is the difference between the two wordings?
> 
> "have" sounds right (...), hmm.  Check dictionary ``/has/ 3rd person 
> _singular_, present of /have/'' [canadian oxford] so "have" is correct.

I didn't realize that you were talking only about "has" vs "have"
(your alternative wording was different in other ways).  I agree that
"have" is correct here.