[PATCH] muzzle a noisy warning in procfs

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>]

I added this warning to procfs myself a couple years ago, as 
part of the general procfs rewrite.  It was just a paranoia
warning, and AFAIK it's never been triggered "in real life"
before now.  Unfortunately now it goes off all the time, because
of the change I recently made in resume().  Resume now calls
target_resume with a specific thread ID whenever it wants to
step over a breakpoint -- even when the program is not
multi-threaded.

So I'm just gonna take the warning out, as it is no longer
appropriate (it's no longer an error condition).
2001-07-06  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@redhat.com>

	* procfs.c (procfs_resume): Silence noisy warning.

Index: procfs.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/procfs.c,v
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -c -3 -p -r1.30 procfs.c
*** procfs.c	2001/05/15 00:03:36	1.30
--- procfs.c	2001/07/06 21:30:01
*************** procfs_resume (ptid_t ptid, int step, en
*** 4535,4544 ****
      {
        /* Resume a specific thread, presumably suppressing the others. */
        thread = find_procinfo (PIDGET (ptid), TIDGET (ptid));
!       if (thread == NULL)
! 	warning ("procfs: resume can't find thread %ld -- resuming all.",
! 		 TIDGET (ptid));
!       else
  	{
  	  if (thread->tid != 0)
  	    {
--- 4535,4541 ----
      {
        /* Resume a specific thread, presumably suppressing the others. */
        thread = find_procinfo (PIDGET (ptid), TIDGET (ptid));
!       if (thread != NULL)
  	{
  	  if (thread->tid != 0)
  	    {
From jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com Fri Jul 06 14:36:00 2001
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: fix GDB casts when pointers are not addresses
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:36:00 -0000
Message-id: <npsng9lox5.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
References: <20010628225704.9AB635E9CB@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3B43F7F6.3080902@cygnus.com> <3B4556A5.3040702@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00163.html
Content-length: 567

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> > - the integer produced is the byte address in the code segment (so for
> >   the D10V, this would be the pointer's value times four), or
> > 
> > - the integer produced is the 16-bit pointer value reinterpreted as a
> >   16-bit integer --- no adjustment takes place.
> > 
> > Currently, GDB implements the former, while GCC implements the former.
> > This patch changes GDB to match GCC.
> > 
> > 
> > Um, ....
> 
> Jim,  I take it you ment:
> 
> GDB implements the former, while GCC implements the latter.

Er, yes.