From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-35393-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20670 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2004 19:08:51 -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 20658 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2004 19:08:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Aug 2004 19:08:51 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7NJ8oe3008383
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:08:51 -0400
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7NJ8na00892;
	Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:08:50 -0400
Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9362B2B9D; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:07:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <412A407B.9040302@gnu.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:08:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>, kettenis@chello.nl
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb_ptrace.h
References: <200408132153.i7DLr1gF012138@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <411D3C25.nailH6I31CLNM@mindspring.com> <200408210754.i7L7sRrE034170@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <41270985.nailLDC113BMN@mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <41270985.nailLDC113BMN@mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00624.txt.bz2

> Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl> wrote:
> 
>>> All three of them, and hopefully everything before 10.20 too.  That's
>>> why I think HP-UX without a version number is more appropriate.
> 
> 
> But then someone comes along in 2006 and wonders whether it applies to
> hpux 11.23 or not.  That's why I like to use version numbers when I've
> observed something.  -- Just my opinion, though.

Right, we should at least explicitly list the systems on which we've 
confirmed the assertion.

Andrew