From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15265 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2002 18:45:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15249 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2002 18:45:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2002 18:45:07 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BB63C65; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 14:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D29DDAE.9080702@ges.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 13:39:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020613 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Muller Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Resend: [RFA] Fix problem with i386 watchpoints after restarting References: <4.2.0.58.20020704143015.02832028@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <200206131016.g5DAGcf00647@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4.2.0.58.20020613091046.01957c70@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20020613091046.01957c70@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20020704143015.02832028@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <4.2.0.58.20020704183019.027bb788@ics.u-strasbg.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 > At 18:25 04/07/2002 , Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit: > >>On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 03:12:46PM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote: > >> > At 15:35 17/06/2002 , Pierre Muller a écrit: > >> > >At 12:16 13/06/2002 , Mark Kettenis a écrit: > >> > > >Sorry, I somehow missed your earlier message. This seems to me as an >> > > >acceptable way to solve the problem (although I still think there is >> > > >something wrong with GDB's mechanism of removing hardware breakpoints. >> > > >But: could you add the reason why this is needed to the comment. >> > > >Minor nit: Please end your sentences with a '.' and put two spaces >> > > >after it. > >> > >OK, I slightly modifed the patch >> > >by adding a comment to i386-nat.c >> > >and correcting the comment in the nm-i386.h file. >> > > >> > >Can I check this in? > >> > >> > After getting approval by a private mail, I have >> > checked this in. > >> >>Is this appropriate for the branch also? My instincts say yes. > > Isn't 5.2.1 aleady frozen? No. I keep going to do this but someone turns up with a new patch :-) > I would also be in favor of putting it into the branch, but I don't know who should decide this.... Something for the i386 maintainers to decide. Andrew