Re: Multiplexed registers and invalidating the register cache

Eli Zaretskii
2004-04-28T17:40:12Z

> 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.