From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2157 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 14:11:30 -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 2147 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 14:11:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 14:11:29 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDB52B8F; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:11:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F841B0F.1060104@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:11:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland McGrath Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] target_read_aux_vector References: <200310070208.h9728fCd011811@magilla.sf.frob.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 > Roland, not sure why you posted this. The relevant discussion has still >> not been resolved. > > > I like to write code more than I like to speculate about how I will write > it. My favorite sort of discussion about code includes exchanges of "like > this? [and some code that might work]", "no, different because of foo and > bar", "ok, so like this? [and some different code that might work]", and so > on. Let's have a discussion like that! > > I developed one of the alternatives being discussed to flesh out the issues > with doing it that way. In the process, I noticed that part of it was > independently useful (fixing a missing part of gcore functionality). I > posted this patch to demonstrate the utility of this alternative for the > purpose we are discussing, and the bonus feature that my patch as posted > fixes an existing, separate shortcoming of gdb. Now discuss! In that case, can I suggest posting such things as [wip] (work-in-progress). That way it's clear that the change is intended as a discussion point, and not a final waiting-on-approval patch. It unfortunatly comes across as very strange when someone posts what looks like the final [rfa] for for a specific variant of a change when the related technical discussion has not been resolved. enjoy, Andrew